Alan Coopersmith wrote:
> Alan DuBoff wrote:
>> My reccomendation is to have only 1 core contributer, Garrett.
>
> The constitution [1] requires a minimum of 3. Given that Garrett,
> Murayama and Juergen all have Core Contributor status from the OGB,
> I would be tempted to name them as the three initial Core Contributors
> of the Device Driver community.
And I think that these three people make sense. Btw, I accept the
nomination from Alan.
>
>> AlanC mentioned that we might want to change the rules so that we
>> could allow folks such as Max Brunning to be considered contributers,
>> and to some extent I agree, but I think we should be firm and move
>> slower rather than faster in this regard.
>
> It's up to each community what sort of contributions count towards
> status,
> so it's not changing the rules if you haven't made any yet.
>
> I believe that contributions such as Max teaching and writing
> documentation
> on device driver writing are just as important to the vital
> functioning of
> the community as actually writing the code.
Yes. Although, its important that Max's work actually be accurate. I've
not reviewed his info, so I don't know whether it is or not.
>
>> If anything I would like to make it more difficult for people to do a
>> putback, and why I think Garrett is the only person we can actually
>> call a core contributer at this point.
>
> Since Device Drivers doesn't own a consolidation of it's own, just
> integrates
> to consolidations such as ON, it doesn't really seem to get a vote on
> who can
> do a putback - certainly Core Contributor status in a community is not
> tied to
> putback rights in any consolidation I'm aware of.
Correct. But in theory we could have our own child gate, with our own
putback rules, although ultimately getting anything from _that_ gate
into Nevada would have to follow Nevada rules.
I'm not sure I see a lot of merit in having a child gate though.
-- Garrett
