2011/5/31 13:39 -0700, daniel.sm...@oracle.com: > 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 ...
Good ideas; I'll make these changes. > 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. Hmm. The difficulty here is that it creates more forward references to terms not yet even mentioned or described, much less defined. In general I've tried to minimize such references. I'll think about it. > (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.) That terminology discussion was had and we didn't come up with any better terms. We are, however, still open to suggestions. > 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? I think that's an acceptable outcome. - Mark
