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

[Jim Grisanzio]

Menno Lageman wrote:
> Jim,
>
> what is the discerning factor between being a Core Contributor or a 
> Contributor (i.e. what makes a person a Core Contributor instead of a 
> Contributor)? Right now, the draft seems to suggest that the 
> difference is in the status of the person nominating and number of +1 
> and -1 votes.

Yes. Right now you get one more vote because you did more or the Core 
Contributors see you doing more or whatever. It's very much a judgment 
call. The Constitution is pretty vague on this, and I personally hope 
the distinction between Core Contributor and Contributor goes away as 
the Constitution evolves. I'll certainly be advocating for that to 
happen because I see no value in having two levels so closely defined.

>
> The desktop guys have criteria for this based on merit (like 'do x' to 
> be eligible for Contributor status , do 'y' to be eligible for Core 
> Contributor status). Shouldn't this CG also have some criteria?

Maybe yes, maybe no. It depends on what people here want and who is 
willing to make a case for or against it.

My view is this: I'm aware of the efforts to quantify what one has to do 
to earn the status, which I think is good in some (maybe many) cases. If 
someone wants to take a crack at writing those guidelines for Advocacy, 
I think people would be more than happy to consider it. I haven't 
drafted such a document myself because I feel that it should be obvious 
(my dream, anyway), and I think we already have way too much process on 
OpenSolaris as it is now. I actually want Advocacy to loosen its 
processes significantly and grow much faster to embrace thousands of 
people. We should have 200 UGs by now. Or more. The Advocacy CG has 
about 5K people in it. It should have at least 10K by now. So, I'm 
advocating for a minimum number of rules and a maximum amount of 
flexibility and trust. OpenSolaris is currently structured in the exact 
opposite way. Currently, people pick and poke and argue and debate and 
then argue and debate some more about every word of the Constitution to 
find a reason to do anything. That's just too slow for me. Also, I 
believe that the person doing the recommending needs to argue for the 
grant. "I feel X deserves Core because he/she did and Z" as an example. 
And I'd like for that to be as creative and flexible as possible. Now, 
if we got rid of the two levels of Core Contributor and Contributor that 
would be a bit easier.

Just my view ...


Jim

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