On Tue, Jul 8, 2008 at 10:58 PM, John Plocher <John.Plocher at sun.com> wrote: > Peter Tribble wrote: >> >> Groups have no role in adding Members. That's entirely in the hands of the >> membership committee. > > Yes and no... > > As I understand it, this proposal defines > > A Member is > A CONTRIBUTER who wishes to have a vote in the > community-wide elections and decision-making > process. > > A Contributer is > A PARTICIPANT who has been acknowledged by > one or more Groups as having substantively > contributed toward accomplishing the tasks > of that Group. > > A Participant is > Someone who is participating in the > activities of a Group. > > Unfortunately, there is no one-size-fits-all definition for > what it means to substantively contribute - which is why we > expect each group to define what "substantially" means in > their context. > > Examples: "Has put back more than 5 changes to the consolidation > gate", "has led a User Group and developed and given more than 5 > public presentations on OpenSolaris topics", "has taken over > responsibility for the upkeep and maintenance of more than 5 pages > on the OpenSolaris website" may all be reasonable definitions; > "has posted hundreds of messages to a mailing list" probably > isn't. > > The OGB Membership committee will have the final say on each > group's definition because we want there to be equivalent > levels of effort across the various Groups and we want their > measures to be objective and repeatable. (And, yes, we expect > there to be substantial sharing and reuse of definitions across > the various Groups) > > Once a group has an approved membership policy, the OGB (which > does not at all want to be in the clerical business) is willing > to delegate the "please make me a contributer and/or member of > your Group" authority and ability to the facilitator(s) of that > group. It will do that by adding the group's facilitator(s) to > the Membership Committee, and by giving all of that committee's > members the authority to use the make-a-new-contributer-or-member > webapp tools.
That's broken. It takes the bad and broken system we have at present and makes it even more bureaucratic and unmanageable. Instead of a single membership committee, you're saying that every group should have its own membership management infrastructure. That's a huge waste of effort that most groups simply don't want to have to get involved with, and it gets us back to the mess we have at the moment where nothing gets done because every change has constitutional impact. To move forward we must separate central governance from local governance, so that communities can just get on with what they need to do without getting all tangled up in constitutional red tape. -- -Peter Tribble http://www.petertribble.co.uk/ - http://ptribble.blogspot.com/
