John Plocher wrote: > On Sat, Feb 27, 2010 at 9:25 PM, Jim Grisanzio <Jim.Grisanzio at sun.com> > wrote: > >> Jim Walker wrote: >> >>> This is why we want the new constitution to a pass. >>> It separates the two roles. >>> >> When you say separate do you really mean collapse? In other words, the >> collapsing of the two governance roles of Contributor and Core Contributor >> into one governance role called Contributor? That`s the obvious change I >> see, so I just wanted to clarify. >> > The intent of the new constitution is to separate the roles of > "someone who has contributed to the community, and therefore has > acquired merit"
Ok, thanks. So in this first case, what role would this person get? > and "someone who has merit and desires to participate > in the governance of the larger community". In this second case, I assume you mean the role of Contributor since that is a governance role and involves voting (it`s the old Core Contributor role, in other words, correct?). > Contributors and Leaders > (those who have merit) get to *choose* whether or not they want to > help govern the OS community; the global governance designation of > "member of the electorate" is a voluntarily chosen one. > > In this case the role of Contributor will be used as a voting role as part of the Electorate (governance issues, basically) but also as not part of the Electorate. So, I could potentially earn the role of Contributor and then choose to use that role to participate in governance, or I could just keep the role of Contributor as a recognition of my work. Am I understanding that correctly? > The current constitution irrevocably intertwines the two concepts and > forces every leader who has acquired merit to also play a role in > community governance. Why? If someone wants to be involved in governance, the shoot for C and CC roles. If they don`t, they shoot for Leader, Affiliate, Developer, etc. > Every leader of a community is a Core > Contributor, and every Core Contributor is also a member of the > electorate. The only way a leader can get out of being in the > electorate is to resign their Core Contributorship. I understand you are using the term leader here in the generic sense, which is fine, but in practice we have a specific role of Leader that people can acquire. Getting out of CC status is easy, and there are a variety of ways to do so. > This sucks > because it bloats the electorate with people who don't care and > because it conflates the concepts of local and global leadership. > > I agree that the electorate can potentially become bloated under the current constitution. But as a practical matter, that has not occurred. The number of CCs on this site currently is a relatively small number given the number of people involved in OpenSolaris around the world. Just on this site there are about 15K people subscribed to mailing lists, and that doesn`t take into account all the other OpenSolaris sites out there or OpenSolaris people on social networks (which continues to grow) or at universities, etc. >> it. In general, if people are writing code and integrating code into Project >> repositories, the role they need is "Developer" and that role does not have >> any connection to the governance roles. >> > > The webapp today implements a non-constitutional view - it violates > 3.3. Roles [current one] 3.3 in the current constitution outlines the following roles: Participant, Contributor, Core Contributor, and Emeritus Contributor. How does the site violate these? People configure these roles all the time right now for a variety of reasons. > and 1.1.2 Roles [proposed] by blatantly > ignoring the concept of "having substantively contributed" and its > implicit ties to group leadership by a meritocracy. I am not sure I follow. If someone wants a governance role of Contributor and/or Core Contributor on this site, they read the constitution and follow those governance guidelines and get approved or not. If they are approved then the site can reflect their governance status. Is the proposed constitution intended to document all the roles going forward? In other words, website roles, governance roles, development roles, etc. > Instead of having > leadership by people who have acquired merit by contributing > substantial things, we now have leaders and developers who have no > requirement to have contributed anything at all. Leaders and Developers are not governance roles. Basically Leaders manage web infrastructure and Developers work on code. The details of all the website and governance roles are specified here: http://hub.opensolaris.org/bin/view/Main/site-roles-collectives Additional roles were necessary or else no one would be able to work on the site and no one would be able to access repositories. The current constitution is not specific in those areas (and does not mention other areas such as UGs), and the OGB did not want governance roles conflated with website roles. So, at present, there is no conflating of governance and operations, which is good. That part is clear now. People can dive into Projects and get work done without having to necessarily participate in governance (although as a practical matter most would participate in governance by becoming CCs and vote). But I certainly understand the need to revise the governance document to make those governance roles more clear. Thanks, Jim
