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

[Jim Walker]

Jim Grisanzio wrote:
> I'm going to go ahead and finalize this for our new policy. You guys 
> cool with that? We can always evolve it as need be ...
> 
> Jim
> 

+1

Jim
> 
> 
> Jim Grisanzio wrote:
>> I'd like to add one more thing. I think we should make clear that both 
>> Core Contributors /and/ Contributors need to accept their grants on 
>> list. So, if I nominate John Smith for Contributor and Joe Ryan adds a 
>> +1 I think John Smith should respond with a "thanks, I accept the grant" 
>> note so we all know that John actually wants it. Again, the Constitution 
>> is clear for Core Contributors about this but is silent on Contributors 
>> accepting their grant.
>>
>> Jim
>>
>>
>> Jim Grisanzio wrote:
>>   
>>> 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
>>>     
> _______________________________________________
> advocacy-discuss mailing list
> advocacy-discuss at opensolaris.org
> http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/advocacy-discuss