[advocacy-discuss] Advocacy Voting and Project Proposal Process (draft)

[Jim Grisanzio]

Brandorr wrote:
> Is not one participant enough to start a user group? I know when we
> started it was only two participants, but really only one was needed.
> (Once the UG is formed, we got more just because it existed and we
> were able to advertise it's existence.
>   

I actually wanted to have a minimum of five, to be honest. :) I think 
three is more than reasonable, but I'd accept two if people really 
wanted that change. However, I'm not at all willing to go to one.

> Finally, I don't see any reason why people can't nominate themselves.
> (We actually allowed this in the past, and for this last round of
> nominations.) (They still would need the three approvals.) I just feel
> it is kinda silly, because what you will end up having is people
> saying "Please nominate me."
>  instead of "I nominate myself and I need three approvals". It's
> effectively the same thing, no?
>   

Nominate themselves for what? Core Contributor or Contributor?

The Constitution (7.8) is clear about the Core Contributor in that 
he/she needs to be nominated by a Core Contributor, get the votes, etc. 
However, the Constitution says very little about Contributors, so I'm 
trying to find a balance here until the Constitution is updated. Earlier 
in the thread I had it that people could nominate themselves for 
Contributor and if they got no -1 votes they'd get in. That wasn't good. 
So, I put +1 voting back in for Contributors but set it to two +1 votes, 
whereas Core Contributors have to get three +1s. So, I'm cool with 
people nominating themselves for Contributor status /with the addition/ 
of +1 voting I added in this version of the document.

So, under this scenario, if I nominate Participant John Smith to be a 
Contributor, he starts out with one +1 vote since I nominated him and he 
only needs one more +1 vote. If he nominates himself, he needs to find 
two +1votes because he has no nomination and the bar should be one tick 
higher. That seems like a good way to go for now. Keep in mind that the 
Constitution is not even clear on the notion of nominations counting as 
+1votes. I'm adding that since it just seems reasonable.

So, shall I make these changes and publish this?

Jim

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