On Fri, May 16, 2008 at 6:46 AM, John Plocher <John.Plocher at sun.com> wrote: > > Maybe we are conflating too many things together? There are threads > here focused on simplifying too many things at once: Suffrage, > navigation, communication, decision making...
This has always been a problem with the existing CG/CC structure - it tried to build one structure that tried to serve multiple purposes. Simply separating the above things is a good simplification. Do we attempt to address them independently or together? Take suffrage. Let's just sever the link between someone's position in a CG and whether they can vote in OGB elections. ============================ There are two types of Member 1. Participants. Anyone registered on opensolaris.org is a participant 2. Contributors. Any participant who has contributed significantly to the OpenSolaris community can be named a contributor, giving them the ability to vote in community-wide elections. The OGB shall establish a membership committee to maintain the list of contributors, and to arbitrate in any disputes about whether a participant merits role of contributor. ============================= I would expect that the criteria for elevation to contributorship would be simple and easy to achieve - and frankly if someone is keen enough to want to vote then we shouldn't stand in their way. Also, the membership roles here are completely independent of someone's position in any other of the OpenSolaris structures. Two membership grades. Simple enough. Within some other context, someone might be a committer, gatekeeper, editor, ARC chair, intern, project lead, user group leader. I think that we should leave those roles to the components where they're relevant; there's no need for that to leak through into the constitution. -- -Peter Tribble http://www.petertribble.co.uk/ - http://ptribble.blogspot.com/
