On Dec 16, 2009, at 00:18, Valerie Bubb Fenwick wrote: > 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.
I'm clearly missing something here. The principle that anyone with Contributor status could get an Electorate vote ensures only true participants can engage over governance, and the principle that people who don't use their vote lose it and have to renew seems to cover quorum control without bureaucracy. I believed both principles were done and dusted. So where is the dissent arising? S.
