Hi, Stephen Hahn wrote: > * James Carlson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2007-02-13 09:36]: >> Stephen Hahn writes: >>> The current approach is that projects seek sponsoring Community >>> Groups, and that project leads will become Contributors or Core >>> Contributors in the sponsoring Community Group. >> That doesn't happen, though. > > Not yet, no: my first excuse is that we're in the bootstrap phase of > the process. But even during the bootstrap, people have recourse to > the Board. > > I suppose the priority that I am operating with (divined from the > Board, I think) is that we need an elected Board with a clearer > mandate to make changes. First on that set of changes (I hope) is > some reeducation of what it means to have a Community Group--it's not > just a set of web pages and an alias, but a responsibility to act as > the embassy for a set of technical or social interests to the larger > Community. That is, it's work, which I don't think was made clear > during the earlier phases of the effort.
Long term, FWIW, I'd like to see a Membership committee/working group elected by the board to handle recommendations or otherwise for new Members. It would be neutral consistent body that could be able to handle new requests and confirm references on the application with the associating community group. I know this sounds like we're pushing away everything from the OGB, but I see is as a relatively easy barrier to entry for getting involved in the project. Glynn _______________________________________________ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
