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

[Jim Grisanzio]

Brian Gupta wrote:
> On Dec 13, 2007 1:52 AM, Jim Grisanzio <Jim.Grisanzio at sun.com 
> <mailto:Jim.Grisanzio at sun.com>> 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. 
>
>
> I disagree. We can add and subtract from that number. I don't think 
> the fact that Advocacy has many contribs should prevent evaluation. 
> Nor do I feel that current contribs are safe. Basically, if I 
> understand correctly, activity is an important part of contributor 
> status. If you feel that we have a large amount of non-active 
> contributors, email them and see if they awake from torpor. (And don't 
> let that fact prevent us from nominating new contributors.)

We can add, sure, but what's the reasoning for subtracting? People have 
earned their status for a period of 2 years, and we have to honor that. 
Keep in mind that voting is a choice. This is a democracy (loosely 
defined, of course). I argue that it's in your interest to vote, but I 
can't mandate that Advocacy people vote. I am pinging all the user 
groups to alert people to get involved. What I don't want is for 
Advocacy to add a bunch of new Core Contributors only to have the actual 
voting population decrease. I want more potential voting members and an 
increase in the actual votes. That's the goal, anyway. Probably a poor 
choice of words in my previous mail. :)

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