Keith M Wesolowski wrote: > On Mon, May 21, 2007 at 11:46:10PM -0700, Ben Rockwood wrote: > > >> I would submit the following observations in this matter: >> >> 1) In the early days of the project communities, and later projects, >> were created not for the purposes of governance or contribution, but >> rather to provide mailing (discussion) lists. >> > > Agreed. > > >> 2) These entities (Communities or Projects) without leadership can be >> thought of more appropriately as Special Interest Groups (SIGs) rather >> than contributory bodies. >> > > Ok. > > >> 3) The discussions within these SIGs may or may not result in one or >> more contributory efforts worthy of full project status. >> > > Agreed. > > >> 4) Failing the above, these groups simply had no where else to go. >> > > This is where we part ways. The Constitution clearly states that the > OpenSolaris Community is *defined* to be the collection of Community > Groups, and that all work is done by those Groups by forming projects. > > Nowhere else to go? Not so. They can and should be absorbed into an > appropriate Community Group as an internal discussion list, SIG, > committee, or other structures that Group's leadership prefers. It's > not clear to me that the At-Large Community Group could fill this > purpose if no other Group were appropriate, but a flexible > interpretation of the Constitution might permit it. Perhaps Roy is > reading and would be willing to share what he had in mind here - it > seems to me that the intent of this Group was only to recognise > contributors who otherwise would not be. > > The observation was historical. Look at the list of "parentless groups" that Alan posted. I think its fair to say that some of them were created as communities because of constraints imposed by the website CMS and not because someone was thinking about the framework of the project.
I am not suggesting they stay that way... rather, this response was intended provide a solution to rectifying the problem. To sum up without the formality: Suck up the stragglers where you can, Consolidate everywhere, and provide a new class for "list only" groups or projects that don't fit into any current definition. Whether that list-only entity is owned by a community or not, I don't care. But how do you deal with the SysAdmin community... who should own it? What will they do? It simply doesn't fit anywhere. My proposal for a SIG definition resolves that loophole. >> I would make the following recommendations to be considered by the OGB >> with reguards to 2007/003: >> >> 1) That a new Incubator Community be established to provide a home for >> efforts that may or may not blossom. This community should be staffed >> with Core Contributors appointed by the OGB by whatever means it >> determines appropriate. These leaders should provide refuge for >> fledgling projects that fall outside the scope of existing Communities >> by supplying them with a Project or Initiative for work and discussion, >> and provide support to these groups as they grow and eventually are >> birthed out of the Incubator Community. >> > > The OGB cannot appoint anyone to lead a Group; only the Group itself > can do so. And a proposal for a Community Group has to include at > least three such initial Core Contributors (see 7.4). You're welcome > to submit this proposal in accordance with those requirements > (including that for public comment), and the OGB will give it due > consideration. > Hence the "appointed by the OGB by whatever means it determines appropriate." Its the responsibility of the OGB to ensure leaders and staff is in place where it is required. That may be done by simply asking someone to step forward and name 2 friends and the OGB to bless it. > However, given the scope you've described here, which isn't really a > scope at all, I would be disinclined to support the formation of such > a Group. There are 43 existing Groups (many quite broad in scope) > able to sponsor a project; if there is no Group willing to sponsor a > particular project, there's probably a reason for it. That reason > isn't likely that there exists no appropriate Group but that the > project is not considered desirable, is not properly focused, or is > redundant or in conflict with other work. At the time I write this, a > grand total of 0 projects have been proposed under the new process and > failed to find a sponsor; why should we solve this hypothetical > problem? > > Hypothetical? Then vote down my proposal. >> 2) An addition to the existing framework for SIGs, being defined as >> non-contributory entities provided solely for discussion and being >> outside the direct scope of any existing Community. These SIGs should >> not conform to the standard definitions layed out in the constitution, >> and rather than "Contributors" or "Core Contributors" should rather have >> "Stewards" who tend to the duties of the SIG (moderation, list creation, >> page updates, etc). These SIGs and Stewards would fall under the >> authority of the OGB, and not be exempt in any reguard. >> > > Why do you feel the SIGs need to be outside the scope of any Group? > > >> 3) That the OGB solicit and establish proper leadership (Contrib and >> Core) for existing communities that are require but currently lack it, >> by whatever method the OGB finds acceptable. The Storage Community is >> such a case. I would propose that Core Contribs from its subordinate >> projects be elevated to these roles. >> > > We're already trying to do this with several of the leaderless Groups. > Ultimately, however, it's up to the membership to step up and take > charge. I hope that the impetus for proper Group leadership will come > from within the Groups themselves and from project teams which now > need the backing of a Group to proceed. I would certainly encourage > the OGB to entertain petitions from participants frustrated by a lack > of leadership in their Groups. But the OGB has neither the power nor > the ability to compel leadership from others. If no one wants to lead > these Groups, we will assume, correctly in my view, that the > OpenSolaris community does not believe they are needed. > > The OGB has the power to destroy communities. If a group has no leadership it is compelled to do so. All I'm saying is to try and clean things up and consolidate wherever possible... which you say your doing, so we're on the same wavelength. >> I humbly request that this matter be added to the agenda of the next OGB >> meeting for consideration and review. >> > > Most definitely. > > So, since none of this is needed, explain how you deal with the Gaming, SysAdmin, and Appliance groups we have today. Where do they fit? How do you integrate them? benr.
