elijah wright wrote: > I sent AlanB a note to this effect a couple of hours ago -- a number > of us volunteered to proactively step in and help define procedure, > and now we're basically going to get ignored and pushed aside.... > again. > > I suggest having at least half of the core contributors to the new CG > - or whatever the OGB wants to establish - be non-Sun employees. > I think setting these sorts of arbitrary ratios of Sun vs. non-Sun is going to be ultimately harmful. We are all part of the same community, and mandating that some specific # of people be "internal" vs. "external" sets artificial limits and means we end up finding or drafting people who aren't necessarily the best fit solely to fill a quota. (and yes, I am against affirmative action[1]).
We have a well-defined process for recognising people's efforts in a Community Group though, and that is by way of Contributor Grants. If the OGB votes in approval of the revised CG proposal, then any interested individuals can and should get involved in the CG's responsibilities (in this case, you guys are interested in website content). As contributions are made, you can either self-nominate or be nominated by others for Contributor or Core Contributor grants. This path has been trod by other CGs, and has been proven to work. I think it remains applicable here, and that we shouldn't special case anything for this CG lest we set bad precedent for any future CG proposal. cheers, steve [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Affirmative_action -- stephen lau | [EMAIL PROTECTED] | www.whacked.net _______________________________________________ website-discuss mailing list [email protected]
