Simon Phipps wrote: > On Aug 25, 2008, at 23:12, John Plocher wrote: > >> Simon Phipps wrote: >>> I've updated the Wiki page as Glynn suggested. >>> John: I don't think I understand your objection. >> The membership page mixes the concepts of Contributer and Member. > > Well, it mentions both but in my view clearly distinguishes between > defining the terms in the first section and then using them in the > second section. If it's not clear I'd be happy for it to be clarified. > >> Contributership is granted on a per-collective basis by the >> leaders of the various collectives, using OGB-committee-approved >> guidelines that ensure that contributions are substantive (etc). >> The Membership Committee is responsible for helping develop and >> approving those guidelines. The Guidelines need to provide for >> a level playing ground of contributions across different >> contribution domains - no matter what collective you are in, to >> become a Contributer, your contributions must be "substantial". >> >> >> I don't think we are re-debating *that* process, are we? > > We might be, yes. Each Collective is free to do what it pleases. The > only check is when people apply for Member status in the Electorate > collective. Normalising would be a huge effort. > >> If not, then we can ASSERT that anyone who has been granted >> Contributer status in /any/ collective has already met all the >> requirements "to justify Electorate Member status". > > No, because to do that involves a massive process of pre-emptively > validating every collective. > >> That is, Electorate Membership presumes that one is already a >> Contributer elsewhere. If one is a Contributer elsewhere, the ONLY >> thing standing between them and their becoming a Member of the >> Electorate is their desire to become one. There should be no other >> roadblocks or additional approvals needed by the OGB, the Membership >> Committee or anyone else - they already are a Contributer and they >> wish to take on the role of member. Done deal. > > In an ideal world, perhaps. But we'll not be able to bootstrap that > process easily, so I'm suggesting the process that I have. It's > possible that in a future iteration we'll be comfortable with > eliminating the "vouch for" step, but I actually think it is a useful > step that increases the personal value of the grant of Member status > in the Electorate.
Simon, I'm failing to understand why you need the "vouch for" step if someone's already a contributor in their "collective." What does it add? I tend to agree with John that it's redundant with being previously granted contributor status in the collective, because presumably the person was already "vouched for" at that point. I particularly don't see how it does anything about the problem of each collective doing what it pleases in terms of granting contributor status. Can't each collective leader still do what he/she pleases in vouching for nominees for member status? Thanks, Nick > > S. > > _______________________________________________ > ogb-discuss mailing list > ogb-discuss at opensolaris.org > http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/ogb-discuss
