On 12/11/2007, Stephen Lau <stevel at opensolaris.org> wrote: > 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
Maybe some of the benefits you listed below should be made more apparent so people realise that contributor status is a somewhat tangible reward for that recognition. Before we had those features though; the contributor grant really didn't have any value, and the official recognition didn't mean much more than a "congratulations!" (to me anyway). > 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. Having forgotten about those things; I guess I have to retract some of my original meanderings and agree with this. > 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. True; those weren't there at launch and I had forgotten about them. I use them frequently for my contributions but didn't really think about what enabled me to use them. > > 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. I stand corrected; though I had been part of conversations surrounding the voter turnout and had even seen that definition before I had forgotten about this. Perhaps something we should consider doing is creating a policy to enforce a mandatory set of expectations to maintain core contributor status (I know many countries require voters to participate in certain votes or face penalties). As you say, a grant of core contributor implies that there are certain expectations and responsibilities. If that is true, we need some mechanism in place to ensure that that those are fulfilled to help prevent things such as the abysmal voter turnout we had last time. Of course, one could argue that apathy wasn't the only problem with voter turnout; having an ssh-key based voting mechanism (instead of web based) as well as the confusion surrounding the test poll resulted in some voters not voting at all I would venture to guess. > > 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 :) Defining those responsibilities, creating a policy to ensure they are fulfilled, defining the benefits of each type of grant, and encouraging communities and projects to be more active in offering these grants, instead of making people seek them out, would go a long way to helping clear this issue up. That would also help individuals make an informed decision or be able to determine whether they want it 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. I personally felt uncomfortable with asking for the one core contributor grant I did ask for because I wanted to be able to vote in community-wide decisions. I believe others may be uncomfortable asking for such a designation publicly as well since they may (justifiably or not) fear rejection of that request. Cheers, -- Shawn Walker, Software and Systems Analyst http://binarycrusader.blogspot.com/ "We don't have enough parallel universes to allow all uses of all junction types--in the absence of quantum computing the combinatorics are not in our favor..." --Larry Wall
