I appreciate the outcry of supporting response and well placed intent and concerns of others. In response, I would like to add the following thoughts...
- Offering the Core Contributor role/rights is a grand gesture of confidence in the people who are working to step up, however, I wish to caution this body on allowing the former WEB members a core contributor role with little more than active discussion on a TLD issue and a few votes around a polling graphic. Essentially agreeing with a comment earlier about not forcing our way into a CC role. (Although on an alternative, it could be argued the individuals were serving and performing their function) - I believe individuals who have long been proven to perform the core contributor role in other communities who are active here should be the initial individuals in the community granted to perform the roles, as well as the community founder(s). Sun employees or not, I believe the numbers do not matter. As prejudiced as some may believe, the Sun Employees are not as biased or slanted as some may think. I for personal reasons would like to note I work for EDS and my participation in this community is strictly personal and not in any representation of my employer, which is a significant Sun Microsystems Partner. - I believe I too must still earn my right to obtain the goal of becoming a core contributor regardless, however if permitted early, I will do my best to serve its function. - I believe that the active responses given thus far show many individuals have a guarded interested in establishing active moderation of content in addition to opening the road for others to provide input and talents. We are here to foster a creative environment with an ultimate intent of benefiting the global community of OpenSolaris users. - I believe that the core contributors should classify the significant individual content providers and active moderators promptly and appropriately after proving themselves, this can be a delegated responsibility as well for any CG participant to move from observer to contributor who wishes to get involved and shows that interest. For those who do obtain the CC role please consider the following: - Accept all individuals who produce consistent input the rights to be considered for the contributors role. - Give the content moderators at least a contributor role as they would rightfully hold the keys to content control in that function. - Pursue the use or adoption of a formal change engine for both content moderation and submission, be it bugzilla, mantis or some other tool. I believe these emails can become overwhelming when it comes to following conversation around a proposal, RFE, or otherwise. - Establish clearly documented standards around content that would be submitted such that it conforms with graphical and contextual guidelines and styles I am still be interested in aiding moderation, helping draft content standards, and even working to provide regularly timed articles or content that could be reviewed or placed by way of blogged RSS feeds or otherwise. Content is never easy to produce and sometimes individuals need to research it to make it worthwhile. Additionally finding moderators who can essentially govern the use of standards, colors, styles, etc... is a needed service too. Offering the other CGs' an editor who can help get content about their group published as content may be an open opportunity for people to interact and service this groups goals too, it may even foster participation in other groups. In my closure of this note, if final accounting of core contributors does include me, although I humbly believe I have not yet earned it, I will serve the role to the best of my ability to hopefully prove my worth to those who are supporting this action. If I am left out, I would simply request and appreciate the opportunity to rightfully earn this role as an active participant. --Ron -----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, April 04, 2008 7:48 PM To: Ronald A. DeMena III Cc: 'website-discuss'; 'Patrick Finch'; 'Michelle Olson'; 'Barbara Lundquist'; 'Stephen Hahn'; 'Derek Cicero'; 'Alan Burlison' Subject: Re: [website-discuss] Website Editorial Board wiki page created Ronald A. DeMena III wrote: > So now that I have allowed this material to digest in my head. > > Regardless the actions that have occurred over the past week or so what I > have come to understand is the involvement of the people for the purpose of > serving as a Website Editorial Board is no longer the intended path. > Additionally, it would seem as if we the former individuals who were asked > to participate in this capacity were "quote" left out of the future > direction regardless the formal organizational structure. I still hold an > interest. I still have a desire to participate. > Sorry about that, Ron. No disrespect intended. And thanks for speaking up. I said in my mail yesterday that we ought leverage and build from what the committee has already done (based on their work and their expression of interest in participating in an editorial function the previous OGB set up). And I also wanted the committee members to participate but I didn't specifically say as founding members. My mistake. I see Alan has fixed that. We have two things we are building from: Alan's initial proposal and the website committee. Hopefully we'll get something in shape so we can move this forward and get it approved. If I have forgotten anything else, just shout ... :) Jim -- http://blogs.sun.com/jimgris/ No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG. Version: 7.5.519 / Virus Database: 269.22.5/1358 - Release Date: 4/3/2008 6:36 PM No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG. Version: 7.5.519 / Virus Database: 269.22.5/1358 - Release Date: 4/3/2008 6:36 PM _______________________________________________ website-discuss mailing list [email protected]
