* Keith M Wesolowski <keith.wesolowski at Sun.COM> [2007-04-12 11:11]: > On Thu, Apr 12, 2007 at 09:08:20AM -0700, Alan Coopersmith wrote: > > > For the At-Large Community, the OGB grants, pending e-mail to the > > OGB secretary, from each contributor indicating acceptance, > > Core Contributor status to these groups of Contributors: > > 1. The members of the CAB / 2006-7 OGB and their Secretary > > 2. The members of the CAB Governance Working Group > > 3. The current OGB members > > 4. The creators of the OpenSolaris distros recognized by the > > previous OGB > > This fourth item seems wrong. Is there any reason distribution > creators shouldn't be recognised by a Distributions Community Group > instead? That is, the OGB should really grant contributorship to > people who have made contributions toward governance. I could see > naming a contributor who proposed useful changes to our processes or > who organised the logistics of an OGB meeting. But distributions have > nothing to do with governance.
During the bootstrap discussions, the distribution leaders were noted as (a) not currently well served by any existing CG, and (b) having made substantial contributions to the Community as a whole. At-Large grants were made in the expectation that the emergence of a Distributions CG would not take place in time for ratification, leaving this class of participants disenfranchised. The finite term of a Core Contributor grant makes the At-Large mechanism a useful tool for allowing representative participation in the face of such "CG gaps". (It's not clear in the draft why these classes--and not others, say--are being proposed. I'm assuming the governance association is from the in-meeting discussions.) - Stephen -- sch at sun.com http://blogs.sun.com/sch/
