On Thu, May 15, 2008 at 2:02 AM, Simon Phipps <webmink at sun.com> wrote: > I just posted very rough notes providing an overview of my thinking on > restructuring how we form community groups and grant membership. > You'll find it at http://defect.opensolaris.org/bz/show_bug.cgi? > id=1937 where it's possible to comment and make counter-proposals.
The discussion seems to be taking place in this thread. Oh well. To summarize, I'm highly negative on this. Extending the definition of CGs to include projects (and, to a lesser extent, user groups) isn't workable. For one thing, I expect the number of CGs to be small; creations and administration of CGs is a heavyweight process that should be avoided for other structures like projects which should be trivial to create; we're going to end up with a lot of CCs; many projects may just have one or two active people - and wouldn't (and shouldn't) have the minimum of 3 (desirable 5) CCs for operation. You can't create CGs without CCs. Doing so makes the CG unconstitutional from the start. Note that CCs are really the people providing direction (not necessarily those buried in the work - although they may often be the same). If it isn't clear at the start who's providing direction for a community, then that community doesn't have any leadership to generate a proposal. (Personally I would prefer to see the current CC role swept away. In that currently the only real community role of a CC is to vote in global elections; surely it would be better to have all Contibutors be Members, and the Core status only relevant within a particular CG or project or whatever - where any group could have it's own leadership structure.) I'm sure you didn't mean it this way (or maybe you did?) but the membership committee sounds far too elitist to me. And if we are to redefine membership (as in voting membership), then we need to set the rules out for everybody. The proposal doesn't specify what the quality control requirements of the Membership Committee are. Overall, where's the simplification? What we really want is to (a) make projects easier to create (b) add SIGs, which is what many of the old communities were, and (c) simplify the membership structure by getting rid of the Core/non-core split and just having Members. -- -Peter Tribble http://www.petertribble.co.uk/ - http://ptribble.blogspot.com/
