Simon Phipps wrote: > On Aug 26, 2008, at 00:21, John Plocher wrote: > > >> Simon Phipps wrote: >> >>> On Aug 26, 2008, at 00:09, John Plocher wrote: >>> >>>> Put another way, if a collective thinks someone is a Contributer, >>>> who are we to second guess them and say they aren't? >>>>
We are not necessarily doing that. I think the point to the proposal is to simply specify a reasonable standard that makes it fair for everyone to work under. It?s not perfect, but it?s a good start. I don?t at all see the OGB or the Membership Committee sitting around judging each application in a dark room somewhere. The proposal even says the process is largely automatic for the vast majority of cases. Disputes can happen, though, so the OGB needs to be able to address them if that occurs. In two years, though, I don?t think we?ve had any real disputes over Membership (in terms of denying people). However, we have had differences of opinion as to what it means to be a Member (Core Contributor), so that?s what we are trying to work toward mitigating. >> >>> * sets the bar too low for Plenary Member status. >>> >> I don't believe that this is a real problem. In practice, if >> you are trusted enough by the community to be made a Contributer, >> and you wish to be a part of the Electorate, you should be more >> than qualified to do so. >> And in most cases, you are probably correct. And they?d be automatically approved. All the proposal is asking for is some substantiation. The process is pretty thin, I?d say, and I?m the one here who has been most allergic to too much process. :) We have de-coupled (or loosened is probably more accurate) the operations of the community from the governance of the community. That was a good move. That gives more freedom for groups to do their thing locally. However, Membership is more of a national role, so to speak, and it requires a slightly different perspective. And just as each collective group gets to say who is a contributor for their respective group, I think it?s reasonable for the OGB to set some standards for how people become Members for the entire community. I have put up many names to be Core Contributors in Advocacy, and I stand by those names and I?d happily submit them to the OGB committee or vouch for them if asked. > OK, we disagree because I think that's not a reliable assumption. > Let's hear some other voices on this key issue (the meaning of > "Substantial Contribution" as it applies to Electorate Membership). > > I agree the contribution has to be substantial. It will be more difficult to actually specify the meaning, but we can only go so far, I suppose. Can we go on the good faith of each group to define their own meaning or must we specify it all? Initially, I thought we were just going to provide a template for groups to go by. Examples, basically. I don?t think we can know all cases up front, and to me the most important part is that others are offering their own names to support the candidate for Membership. Jim -- http://blogs.sun.com/jimgris/
