Simon Phipps wrote:
On Mar 5, 2007, at 20:55, Glynn Foster wrote:
Hi,
Keith M Wesolowski wrote:
reality. Similarly, is your qemu project affiliated with any
community? If so, ask the leaders of that community why you weren't
included.)
Exactly - that's the right place to start, not with the OGB and not
with the process itself. If the Community leaders are unresponsive or
don't appear to have any sound rationale for denying endorsement,
escalation to the OGB may be appropriate. The OGB should never force
a Community to endorse a Project; presumably the Communities are the
repository of technical knowledge and leadership and are expected to
make value judgments about the viability and desirability of ongoing
work. But denying endorsement by failing to maintain awareness of
relevant projects, because of personality conflicts, or for other
reasons not related to a project's technical merit is a problem well
within the OGB's mandate to address.
But there's absolutely no consistency with that. There's no
guidelines or best
practices of how to apply the membership. If one community's
interpretation of
the process is easier for geting 'Core Contributor' status compared
to another
community's process, then you're potentially going to get a weighted
community.
No one wants that, it'll only lead to bitterness among the wider
community.
While I can appreciate how it on a local level within the various
OpenSolaris
sub-communities, so that you build up a web of trust when technical
issues need
to be tackled, I'm still really struggling how it fits with the wider
global
OpenSolaris community. It's very clear there are a number of
groups/individuals/whatever that don't have the same level of
interest or
approach to detail that you do, Keith, and that worries the crap out
of me.
I think the OGB always assumed this would be one of the first areas a
new, elected OGB would want to work on. Just because the "membership"
mechanism is as it is for this bootstrapping process doesn't mean it
is either correct or that it is permanent. It is just there to get us
started.
But the current process has meant many people who have a high
commitment are being left out because
- they have not be following cab-discuss
- their core contributers of their community have not following the
cab-discuss process
But the more alienating factor is most likely to be the selection of
contributors is not transparent. Especially when one sees their peers
are not the list and they are not on the list.
At least when I was working on the membership committee of GNOME
foundation membership, there is a cohereant decision making process
which we at one stage was so firmly guarded, we even rejected Bruce
Perens (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bruce_Perens) on his first
application for membership. Bad, but at least consistent.
We certainly lacking consistency at this moment, let the emotion pass
and let hope the new OGB will work on this as their first primary goals,
promotion of membership.
-Ghee
S.
_______________________________________________
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
_______________________________________________
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
