Michelle Olson wrote: > Hi Shawn, > > I respect your decision, but I ask you to reconsider because I need > people like you who know what it's like to be on the outside, have > knowledge of how to request a role in order to get access to resources, > and are willing to speak on topics as you do. More comments below. > > Shawn Walker wrote: >> Michelle Olson wrote: >>> Renewals of CC grants that expired since election: >> ... >>> Shawn Walker for continued CC-level participation >> >> Since I have grants from two other CGs now, I no longer need an OGB >> CC-level grant. The whole reason (as I understood it) that OGB >> CC-level grants existed was when a person contributed to OpenSolaris >> in a general, sustained, significant way and wasn't recognised by any >> other CGs. >> > > That is one way to view it, but that is out of sync with how all the > other communities on this project operate, so I question its validity > and I think it leads to confusion for new people. I'd like to encourage > OGB CG to operate more like the rest of the CGs in this particular area > because it is perfectly fine for people to hold CC grants in multiple > communities, or to hold a CC grant in one area and be a new Contributor > in another area. It is something we should encourage. > > If I actively recognize our contributors, I also make a good example for > the entire project to follow (as the OGB Chair, I am the at-large > community facilitator, so all facilitators can follow my lead and safely > navigate the processes). If I neglect to recognize contributors because > there is "no reason" how can I expect the rest of the CGs to spend time > on it? I will not ask 47 community groups to actively manage their > grants and recognize their contributors and then carefully craft a > loophole for myself. > > Recognizing the work of contributors is also community-building 101. > When you contribute to a new area over time, you should be named a > Contributor by the leaders of that area, full stop. In my experience, > this also leads to many more conversions from Contributor to Core > Contributor because it is simply the carrot instead of the stick.
Michelle, I can certainly see how you could view the OGB CG grants this way. However, the stated interpretation (as I have understood it) for many years now is that the "at-large" grants were for community members that didn't contribute to any specific area in a way that qualified them for a grant from another CG. Thus, the at-large community grants were a way to ensure that those individuals received proper recognition. If the OGB's new position is that at-large grants should always be granted based on an individual's contributions to the community as a whole, then that's fine. However, I think there needs to be some consensus on that. I don't think anyone here is suggesting that community members don't deserve recognition for their efforts and contributions. However, given the past interpretations and statements made, the grants you proposed for contributors that are already recognised by another CG do not make sense. After saying all that, I could see potential worth in changing the currently recognised interpretation of the at-large contributor. This would ensure that an appropriate form of recognition for individuals that contribute to the community as a whole is always provided. But I leave that to the OGB to work out. Cheers, -Shawn
