Hey, Ben Rockwood wrote: > In an ideal world the module maintainers, gatekeepers, ARC members, etc, > would actually be the Core Contribs of a given CG. If those persons > were Core Contribs and made all their decisions in the open, for all to > see and potentially be part of, then we'd really have a very open and > transparent development community! > > But... we can't force that to happen.
You make a good point. Ideally those people could be the core contributors of a given Community Group. However, you could argue that a given module or sub-system is a much finer grained entity than any of our Community Groups are. Thus the current Constitution 'allows' for a whole variety of core contributors to potentially be able to vote in a decision that they honestly have no rights to - an example in point would be core contributors who were given their grant for their KDE work, but were voting on a decision affecting GNOME. It's unlikely that would even happen, but it doesn't naturally reflect 'the people who do the work get to decide the direction'. > For greater clarity Glynn, could you perhaps provide an example > re-shuffle that matches your model? While we have seen a lot of really good Community Groups, we've also seem some pretty terrible ones. It's unclear to me whether those Community Groups (both good and bad) could have simply been special interest mailing lists rather than anything more formal. I'll try and write something up over the next couple of days. Glynn
