Alan Coopersmith wrote: > Simon Phipps wrote: > >> Thanks, Jim, good summary. I'd agree with giving community-wide >> governance-only voting rights to anyone who has a demonstrable history >> of contribution, on request by that person or with the confirmation of >> that person to the request of another. Should we call those people >> "members" and decouple the status from rank in the various community >> groups? >> > > I would say that being designated a core contributor to a community > group should be considered a demonstrable history of contribution, > such that any core contributor could ask to become a voting member > of the community-at-large, but that it should be by request, not > automatic. We know many engineers want a vote in matters in their > area, but don't want to participate in community governance, and > struggling to get quorum for voting on amendments and such because > they don't vote. > > I also wouldn't require being a core contributor of some community > to get a community wide vote - it would just be one way of proving > your contribution level. >
I agree with Alan's answer to Simon. Jim -- http://blogs.sun.com/jimgris/
