On Tue, Jul 8, 2008 at 1:44 PM, Jim Grisanzio <Jim.Grisanzio at sun.com> wrote: > > To me the only people who can support someone's right to be a Member is > his/her peers, the people he/she works with. I don't want an uninvolved > third collective -- the Membership Committee -- deciding that. They > would have no basis to make that decision. However, I'm fine with the > Membership Committee writing and enforcing a community-wide standard for > what it means to be a Member that all the Groups have to meet that > standard. This way we don't have one Group arbitrarily adding Members > using low standards.
Groups have no role in adding Members. That's entirely in the hands of the membership committee. Contributors propose themselves to the membership committee; the only role that groups may play is if the membership committee needs to ask a group if the potential Member has in fact done what they say they've done. Although, in general, I would expect Membership applications to be supported by individuals - the applicants peers - rather than collective groups. You absolutely don't want every single component of the OpenSolaris structure to have to worry about putting forward valid Members; by not forcing that responsibility on them you also don't have to worry one bit about what standards groups apply for Membership - because they don't, that's all done in one place by the Membership committee. -- -Peter Tribble http://www.petertribble.co.uk/ - http://ptribble.blogspot.com/
