2011/5/20 12:09 -0700, neugens.limasoftw...@gmail.com:
> About the membership, it's not really clear what a simple patch is.
>From the Q&A, item 13 [1]:
A small or simple contribution is one that has very little intellectual
content of its own. It might fix a typographical or grammatical error
in a comment, rearrange a code loop for better performance, or report a
failure in existing code but not provide a solution. There is,
unfortunately, no universal numerical measure of "small" or "simple" in
this context.
Does that help?
> Also, I didn't notice that Group membership expires after one year!
Actually that's only true of OpenJDK Members, not all Group Members.
> The
> document doesn't specify who to ask for renewal.
There will be a well-defined mechanism for that, but since it could
change over time it's not specified in detail in the Bylaws.
> It says original groups
> will be created from the old one, but it doesn't say what the old ones
> are,
>From Appendix B [2]:
The OpenJDK Community has, since its inception in 2006, been operating
under a set of informal guidelines for Groups and Projects. The
following changes will be implemented when these Bylaws take effect:
- The initial set of Groups will be the current set of Groups, with
their existing Group Members.
...
> it also put a pressure to release quarterly reports, which may make
> sense for some groups. It doesn't say what happens when group fail to
> provide quarterly updates.
That's implicitly left up to the Governing Board to decide, on a
case-by-case basis. I expect the repeated failure of a Group to publish
quarterly reports will be interpreted by the Board as a sign that the
Group is a candidate for dissolution.
> For the rest, I don't see much difference than the old draft, honestly,
> the same issues with the GB elections still remain.
Understood.
- Mark
[1] http://openjdk.java.net/groups/gb/bylaws/qanda.html#q13
[2] http://openjdk.java.net/groups/gb/bylaws/draft-openjdk-bylaws-09#_B
