The Q&A addresses this issue somewhat, but the root problem remains in the text: in "2. General Roles", "Participant" and "Contributor" are each defined. The definition takes the form of a clear single sentence. "OpenJDK Member" and "OpenJDK Lead", in contrast, are only _described_, not _defined_.
Here's what I'd suggest: An OpenJDK Member is a Contributor who has been approved for OpenJDK Membership by a vote open to all existing OpenJDK Members. OpenJDK Members typically have demonstrated a history ... The OpenJDK Lead is an OpenJDK Member appointed by Oracle to direct the major efforts of the Community ... I also find the connection between General Roles, Group Roles, and Project Roles to be confusing. Might be nice to have something like (in the appropriate sections of "General Roles"): - A Contributor may become a Group Member or a Project Author, Committer, Reviewer, or Lead. - An OpenJDK Member may become a Group Lead. (Along these lines, I question the wisdom of having two roles named "Member", neither of which being a subset of the other. But I assume that terminology discussion has been had already, and this was its conclusion.) A more general comment: in practice, it looks like OpenJDK Membership is only a prerequisite for fairly unusual activities: leading a group, setting up groups/projects, special votes, etc. I'd expect that a typical technical contributor would not see a benefit in actively seeking membership, and so ultimately the OpenJDK Members Group will consist of a few Group Leads and people especially interested in governance. Is this the intent, or at least an acceptable outcome? —Dan
