On Tue, May 13, 2008 at 1:31 PM, Nicholas Solter
> Simon Phipps wrote:
> > John S: This is in no way a comment on the work you or the people you
> > name are doing. It is merely picking up on the pressure for reform
> > that was expressed at the Summit.
> > On May 10, 2008, at 18:51, John Plocher wrote:
> >> John Sonnenschein wrote:
> >>> Yes, of course ( Sorry Joerg, I didn't mean to slight you ). John
> >>> Plocher as well ought to be added to the list.
> >> Thank you, but no - the core contributor grants should be
> >> restricted to those who actually contribute - those of us
> >> who simply pontificate should remain simply "interested" or
> >> maybe "contributors".
> >> I'll let you run with the charter as you see fit since you
> >> are closer to the problem than I am...
> > I think we need to discuss this at an OGB meeting with respect to
> > Article VII of the Constitution. It seems to me that a new CG should
> > start out with /no/ CC grants of its own, and that they should be
> > earned by contribution within the CG.
> > To this end I suggest we explore interpreting §7.4.3 to mean that the
> > initial CCs of any new CG must be existing CCs from elsewhere in the
> > community. With the freedom we have under §7.8, we would then give all
> > of the initial members Contributor grants. We would also need to
> > interpret §8.3 so that the initial outside CCs had CC votes in the new
> > CG until their next renewal. This would have the handy side effect
> > under §7.12 of meaning that any CG that has failed to grow its own CCs
> > by the time the grants of its founders expire would automatically be
> > wound up.
> > Views?
> I agree that it's too early, at community group creation time, to name
> CCs. My experience in creating the HA Clusters community group last year
> was that we somewhat arbitrarily chose some people, and then a few
> months later had to go back and reassess, which led to some people being
> "demoted" to contributors.
> That said, I don't think that naming existing CCs from other CGs solves
> the core problem, that of predicting who's actually going to do the work
> of a CC in the new group. Furthermore, I think it's quite a stretch to
> interpret the constitution in the way you suggest. If we don't like
> something in the constitution, let's change the constitution rather than
> attempting creative interpretations that are clearly not the original
> intent of the wording.
I think this particular group is in the unique position that we are
trying to collect work that's being done all over under a community
banner, so the people I named as CC's have /already/ contributed in a
fundamental way, but generally I agree that most communities are
forced to name at least some CC's arbitrarily.
Or perhaps this community oughtn't be in a unique position. Id est,
communities should spawn out of projects rather than vice versa, core
contributors pulled from the projects that the community is composed
PGP Public Key 0x437AF1A1
Available on hkp://pgp.mit.edu
ogb-discuss mailing list