[advocacy-discuss] Creating a formal procedure to assign contributor status to the advocacy CG.

[Jim Grisanzio]

Alan Coopersmith wrote:
> Jim Grisanzio wrote:
>> I remember now, ok, thanks (Bonnie, Stephen, Stephen). The biggest issue 
>> this year will be to make sure Advocacy actually contributes to the 
>> election and votes since we currently have the biggest number of 
>> potential voters. There's no sense in adding to that number (which we 
>> certainly will do) if we all sit home during election day. Or week.
> 
> One improvement that the constitution mandates over last year's process
> is that people who become Core Contributors have to accept that status,
> and as part of that you can make sure they understand the status comes
> with the privilege and responsibility of voting in the community-wide
> elections.


Cool. I like the idea of accepting the status. Also, people should 
realize that this is a privilege and it is a responsibility, I agree. 
However, choice needs to be involved, as well. Without choice, there is 
no freedom.

> I think last years process, where the community "leaders" just made lists
> for their communities, and many of them didn't understand why or what was
> involved, was part of what led to the voter turnout issues.


In Advocacy (which was the User Group Community back then) we had a very 
long conversation thread on ug-discuss as well as many individual UG 
list talking about this. I started those conversations based on Stephen 
Hahn's initial mail requesting Contributors and Core Contributor names 
form all the Communities. The notion that people just dumped out lists 
is wrong. In fact, many UG leads took this exercise very seriously. But 
was it confusing? Sure, to a certain degree. Just as it was for all the 
CGs at the time. It's not a big deal. We are boot-strapping here.

Jim
-- 
http://blogs.sun.com/jimgris