Shawn Walker wrote: > On 12/11/2007, Stephen Lau <stevel at opensolaris.org> wrote: > >> Shawn Walker wrote: >> >>> 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). > Indeed. This could perhaps be an addendum to the FAQ that Brian Gupta put together... perhaps a table detailing what perks and responsibilities having contributor and core contributor status give. >> 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. > > What? You don't know 100% of what's happening with all things opensolaris.org related? For shame, Shawn, for shame. ;-) Perfectly reasonable, certainly the cr.os.o and vanity email addresses were announced on small lists without wider exposure. >>> 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). > Well, both Glynn and I have felt that voting should be a requested privilege rather than a responsibility. In other words, people should apply for the right to vote: this ensures high voter turnout, and ensures that people voting are responsible and willing voters.
My own personal opinion is that we should do away with the core contributor role, have only contributor grants, and allow contributors to apply for a specific voting right. This lessens the divide between core vs. non-core (since the current terminology clearly creates an impression of elevated privilege for core vs. the non-core contributors), and ensures that for all other rights, the roles are equal. > 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. > Definitely; I think the voting mechanism probably lost us quite a number of casual voters. I believe that everyone who voted was responsible enough to vote, because the ssh mechanism probably eliminated a lot of the casual voters. But my belief is that casual voters shouldn't feel obliged to vote only to fulfill the minimum-voting body count we currently have. >>> 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. > Yup totally agree. Right now, the roles and responsibilities of contributor and core contributor are tied up in various docs on the OGB community, and in the Genunix wiki. I think it would be valuable to have these summarised and laid out clearly in a FAQ somewhere. >>> 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. > And that's broken-ness on our (the OGB/CAB/OpenSolaris community at large, whatever) part. People should *never* feel uncomfortable asking for the right to vote. > 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. > Thanks for the feedback, that's extremely valuable. For the Desktop community, I think they should move ahead and give grants to both Ghee and Albert (I believe Albert has received the necessary +1's, and when Glynn gets back from vacation he can record it - but I don't think Ghee has been officially nominated (hint hint, someone could do this now :))). (wow, I need to not nest my parenthetical comments so much) I'll see if I can summarise this thread into a concrete list of things we could do to (i.e.: any AIs that can be done now, any proposals to the OGB, etc.) cheers, steve -- stephen lau | stevel at opensolaris.org | www.whacked.net
