Garrett D'Amore wrote: > Shawn Walker wrote: >> The proposed project's work overlaps with much of what the ON CG does. >> CGs are currently a higher-level community governance structure, so I >> don't believe that this sort of project fits its current definition. > > No, its disjoint. Sure, they both have kernel bits in them. But as I > said, the ON CG has its own mission, which I believe is orthogonal to > the one I'm proposing here. > > If ON were truly a *community* effort then I might feel differently. > > Are there any non-Sun folks who have ON CC grants, for example? I very > much doubt it. (If only because the bar to contributing to ON is so > high, that nobody external is likely to be perceived to have contributed > enough to warrant a CC grant. Although Roland might be a notable > exception.)
Yes, Roland Mainz and Jurgen Keil for example. There may be others; the list is fairly long to check. There are others that I believe were given grants originally and are now Sun employees, or who were Sun employees. In addition, there are non-Sun folks that have Contributor grants. But I don't really see this as an important point mainly because the number of people that have genuinely tried to contribute to ON in a sustained fashion is relatively small. As such, very few individuals have qualified for CC-level grants, and that's the way its supposed to be as far as I know. You could argue that the current barrier to entry has created this situation, and you might be partially right, but I think anyone genuinely interested and committed would have followed through. >> I am not in any way implying that the current considered members will >> not be interested in community governance, I just wanted you to >> understand why I believe the bar for a CC/CG is higher than >> "contributing". > > I agree with you on this matter. But that doesn't address my question, > which is why this group should not have its own *representation*. I'm > not suggesting that all contributors here would have it, but certainly > those that few that are leaders in the community and have an interest in > the governance matters would do so. What we have right now for community governance isn't adequate to meet your desired goals, so I don't have a better answer for you. Since I know you actually care about community governance, I'm not worried about the current grants. But I personally didn't believe that community governance grants are required to meet the goals of project autonomy. Cheers, -- Shawn Walker
