Re: [osol-discuss] Re: Request a new Community for License Discussion (was CAB/OGB Position
Shawn Walker wrote: Cool, and where is the draft constitution? I suspect you're looking for this: http://www.genunix.org/wiki/index.php/OpenSolaris_Governance_Draft_03 YES. Thanks! I will read that. I also realised this morning that many things have been discussed in cab-discuss which many on this list do not subscribe to naturally. I fear many are left out and to see 'rock' start like Roland Mainz :) has to explicitly requesting to be added to the core contributor list just simply WRONG in the formulation of the membership list :/ What can we do complete the list of contributors as broad yet with reasonable accuracy? We don't want to swamp Stephen Hann with hundreds of email request, or do we :)? -Ghee -Shawn This message posted from opensolaris.org ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] Re: Request a new Community for License Discussion (was CAB/OGB Position
Ghee Teo wrote: I fear many are left out and to see 'rock' start like Roland Mainz :) has to explicitly requesting to be added to the core contributor list just simply WRONG in the formulation of the membership list :/ The problem that caused Roland to be left out is that contributors are associated with/nominated only by communities, not projects, and most of Roland's work has been with projects (especially ksh93-integration). It does seem strange if we're trying to capture the list of those doing the most work to exclude the mechanisms set up to organize work (projects). -- -Alan Coopersmith- [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sun Microsystems, Inc. - X Window System Engineering ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] Re: Request a new Community for License Discussion (was CAB/OGB Position
* Ghee Teo [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2007-02-13 07:58]: Shawn Walker wrote: Cool, and where is the draft constitution? I suspect you're looking for this: http://www.genunix.org/wiki/index.php/OpenSolaris_Governance_Draft_03 YES. Thanks! I will read that. I also realised this morning that many things have been discussed in cab-discuss which many on this list do not subscribe to naturally. I fear many are left out and to see 'rock' start like Roland Mainz :) has to explicitly requesting to be added to the core contributor list just simply WRONG in the formulation of the membership list :/ 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. The pursuit of sponsorship is open to either a project or a Community Group. What can we do complete the list of contributors as broad yet with reasonable accuracy? We don't want to swamp Stephen Hahn with hundreds of email request, or do we :)? I would rather be swamped than get nothing. - Stephen -- Stephen Hahn, PhD Solaris Kernel Development, Sun Microsystems [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://blogs.sun.com/sch/ ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] Re: Request a new Community for License Discussion (was CAB/OGB Position
* Alan Coopersmith [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2007-02-13 08:54]: Ghee Teo wrote: I fear many are left out and to see 'rock' start like Roland Mainz :) has to explicitly requesting to be added to the core contributor list just simply WRONG in the formulation of the membership list :/ The problem that caused Roland to be left out is that contributors are associated with/nominated only by communities, not projects, and most of Roland's work has been with projects (especially ksh93-integration). It does seem strange if we're trying to capture the list of those doing the most work to exclude the mechanisms set up to organize work (projects). The present form makes pursuit of Community Group sponsorship and Contributor status up to the project leads. Failures to match up sponsorship may have multiple causes, with appeal to the Governing Board as a fallback. - Stephen -- Stephen Hahn, PhD Solaris Kernel Development, Sun Microsystems [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://blogs.sun.com/sch/ ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] Re: Request a new Community for License Discussion (was CAB/OGB Position
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. -- James Carlson, Solaris Networking [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sun Microsystems / 1 Network Drive 71.232W Vox +1 781 442 2084 MS UBUR02-212 / Burlington MA 01803-2757 42.496N Fax +1 781 442 1677 ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] Re: Request a new Community for License Discussion (was CAB/OGB Position
* 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. (But in all of the current development process, the onus is on the individual or group suggesting change... so we're at least consistent. :) ) - Stephen -- Stephen Hahn, PhD Solaris Kernel Development, Sun Microsystems [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://blogs.sun.com/sch/ ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] Re: Request a new Community for License Discussion (was CAB/OGB Position
Stephen Hahn wrote: * Ghee Teo [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2007-02-13 07:58]: Shawn Walker wrote: Cool, and where is the draft constitution? I suspect you're looking for this: http://www.genunix.org/wiki/index.php/OpenSolaris_Governance_Draft_03 YES. Thanks! I will read that. I also realised this morning that many things have been discussed in cab-discuss which many on this list do not subscribe to naturally. I fear many are left out and to see 'rock' start like Roland Mainz :) has to explicitly requesting to be added to the core contributor list just simply WRONG in the formulation of the membership list :/ 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. The pursuit of sponsorship is open to either a project or a Community Group. I agree with the approach here. Though, has there been a communication breakdown somewhere. I have been put onto co-lead a printing project recently with Norm Jacobs. Neither Norm nor my name appears on the list of you got here. http://www.opensolaris.org/jive/servlet/JiveServlet/download/17-23690-91845-2080/0-070207-plain.txt Norm is also a community leader for the open printing community. How can we improve the awareness of this across all communities and projects. -Ghee What can we do complete the list of contributors as broad yet with reasonable accuracy? We don't want to swamp Stephen Hahn with hundreds of email request, or do we :)? I would rather be swamped than get nothing. - Stephen ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] Re: Request a new Community for License Discussion (was CAB/OGB Position
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
