Stephen Lau wrote:
> 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.
This I can concur.
> 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.
I would think it should go further, let the contributors to be
granted the right to vote when they request. While I was in the GNOME
foundation committee, each person who requested to become a foundation
member hence the right to vote for the fondation directors (or our OGB)
they have to provide some verbaage of contributions (no just code or
QA), plus references to a couple of existing members. The committe will
then evaluate the application. The references are only used in
borderline case, but generally with a inclusive attitude,. I think this
role (of granting rights to be contributors) to be rotated among the
core contributors of this community with a e-mail approval on this alias
initially. Two +1 from core contributors should be suffice.
>
> 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)
Steve, appreacited your naming here :) Yet on the serious side, I can
easily name 10 people (who is visible from my end) from the desktop have
contributed more code than me :).
May be they don't care to be involved in open discussion like this which
I can understand. For all thing to be fair, I think when they do request
contributor right and indeed voting right, I think they should be granted.
Given the insanity of the current grant to vote system where a
distiguished engineers can be core contributors for multiple communities
(which to be implied they have multiple votes) correct me if I am wrong
here :) Which is not demoncratic voting.
>
> 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.)
I don't think I want to rock the boat too much given that many of the
constitutions and by-laws have been in place, whether the rights to vote
can be granted to contributors who request to vote is a possiblity would
be one thing the OGB can take into consideration. I think the voting
rights is very important for the sense of acceptance and be part of the
community. Since not everyone is able and want to spend tons of times of
mailing list, and having everyone an equal vote regardless of level of
contributions at least enpower the sense of equality to all who care to
be part of the community.
Thanks again Steve for your interest and well being in the desktop
community.
-Ghee
