Shawn Walker wrote: > On 12/11/2007, Brian Nitz <Brian.Nitz at sun.com> wrote: > >> I'm glad Ghee brought this up again. I mentioned it shortly before the >> election 8 months ago that the process for obtaining contributor/core >> contributor status is opaque and appears to be inconsistent. For >> example I assumed that QA wasn't a recognized category of >> "contribution", but then I noticed that Ghee (who has certainly >> contributed opensolaris desktop code) doesn't yet have even contributor >> status. Also, how is it that you Stephen are a member of OGB but don't >> yet have core contributor status? >> >> A few months ago it was forgivable that the whole process is a bit >> cracked, but I fear we are getting to the point where real contributors >> will begin to turn away because they aren't recognized for their >> contributions. >> >> I propose the very first step should be to add a brief description of >> contributions to the grant for individuals with "contributor" or "core >> contributor" status on the >> http://opensolaris.org/viewProfile.jspa?username={} page. At least then >> those who don't have this status can clearly see what kind of activities >> are recognized as contributions. For example it appears that the >> individual who advocated dissolution of a Solaris community isn't >> associated with or leader of any projects or communities but does have a >> core contributor grant. If there is a way for cross community >> contributions to be recognized, it should be documented. >> >> For what it's worth, I would recommend that Stephen Lau and most of the >> desktop development and QA teams should be granted at least contributor >> status. Their work within the Gnome community might not contribute >> code directly into ON, but they do manage to contribute even if it is >> only as a voice in the Gnome community which says, "not everyone is >> running your desktop on GNU/Linux!" every time someone suggests that >> another linuxism be irrevocably bound into what should be a >> multi-platform desktop. >> But I'm neither a contributor nor a core contributor, I just work here. >> > > Which also brings up the issue that only core contributors can vote. > Right now, a contributor grant doesn't mean much in the grand scheme > of things. The only grant that really empowers an individual in our > current governance structure is that of "core contributor." > Depends. A contributor grant gives you official recognition, which is valuable. Having voting rights means assuming responsibilities that not everyone wants. As more infrastructure comes up, contributors should be awarded more. The *only* difference between a core contributor and a contributor should really be voting rights.
To be more technical, contributors do also get the right to use the cr.opensolaris.org code review system, and get @opensolaris.org email address forwarding. > Granting someone "contributor" status at the moment is roughly akin to > telling someone "someday we might let you vote and guide our > community; for now you're on probation" based on my somewhat negative > interpretation of the constitution. Since, it basically says that the > intent is that by becoming a contributor, your contributions can then > be evaluated as "active and sustained" and allow you to be granted > "core contributor." [1] > I disagree there. I would see it more from: Granting someone "core contributor status" means telling someone "we expect you to stay fully involved and informed such that when an election, or a vote comes up, you should be informed enough to vote properly and correctly." There are plenty of people (as evidenced by our dismal turnout in the last election) that want to be involved but don't want to vote. For those people, "contributor" status is the correct and appropriate grant to give them. They don't want (or may not want) to be burdened with the issue of larger community votes or elections. > While I understand not giving someone a core contributor grant a > project / community level, since an individual may not have yet proven > their ability to guide that project or community, I do think it is a > slight to an individual to not be able to vote in the community-wide > elections. > Depends if they want to or not :) > For example, there are individuals that participate in many > discussions within the OpenSolaris community, contribute code to ON, > participate in advocacy, etc. > > However, they never do enough in any one single community (apparently) > to have ever been given a core contributor grant for a specific > project or community. > > As an example, the core contributor grant I have now is only because > the previous CAB/OGB was gracious enough to grant me one for my > community participation. I'm certain there are others in my place. > On that flip side though I've talked to a few extremely valuable contributors that have contributed enough in many communities to warrant being given multiple core contributor grants, but don't want them for the very responsibility that it entails. cheers, steve -- stephen lau | stevel at opensolaris.org | www.whacked.net
