On Tue, 15 Dec 2009, Simon Phipps wrote: > I made it home just before 8pm (noon) in the end, hope you all had a > productive meeting. > > On Dec 15, 2009, at 18:59, Michelle Olson wrote: > >> The heavy-weight process Jim suggests below seems quite contrary to organic >> growth of our membership and supports what we already have today, which is >> a pretty high barrier to entry. Not saying that is a bad thing necessarily, >> but seems counter to where we've been headed with separation of electorate >> from collective membership and decision-making in the new draft governance >> document. > > I agree. The original membership process was modelled on Apache and this one > is even more onerous. I believe that's far to heavyweight for OpenSolaris > given there is no fiduciary responsibility and that we need to move in the > direction of simplicity, not complexity or rigor. > > I agree with Plocher: > > On Dec 15, 2009, at 00:58, John Plocher wrote: >> >> So, to become a Member, someone: >> >> 1. Makes a significant contribution worthy of note >> 2. Is awarded Contributor status by their collective >> 3. Any Contributor of any collective can, at any time choose to become >> a member of the Electorate >> 4. The OGB Secretary (or a membership committee responsible to the >> Secretary) reviews and accepts the application.
I like lighter weight, but agree with the fact that we want members to at least be participants in the community. (Plocher said in the meeting today that he didn't want people voting on policy that didn't do anything else for the community, which I understand). I do like Jim's suggestion, though, of confirming willingness to vote and needing to reaffirm this every two years. That will keep the quorum from swelling with unused grants. Valerie -- Valerie Fenwick, http://blogs.sun.com/bubbva/ @bubbva Solaris Security Technologies, Developer, Sun Microsystems, Inc. 17 Network Circle, Menlo Park, CA, 94025.
