[ogb-discuss] Device Driver Community

[Garrett D'Amore]

Alan Coopersmith wrote:
> Alan DuBoff wrote:
>> My reccomendation is to have only 1 core contributer, Garrett.
>
> The constitution [1] requires a minimum of 3.   Given that Garrett,
> Murayama and Juergen all have Core Contributor status from the OGB,
> I would be tempted to name them as the three initial Core Contributors
> of the Device Driver community.


And I think that these three people make sense.  Btw, I accept the 
nomination from Alan.

>
>> AlanC mentioned that we might want to change the rules so that we 
>> could allow folks such as Max Brunning to be considered contributers, 
>> and to some extent I agree, but I think we should be firm and move 
>> slower rather than faster in this regard. 
>
> It's up to each community what sort of contributions count towards 
> status,
> so it's not changing the rules if you haven't made any yet.
>
> I believe that contributions such as Max teaching and writing 
> documentation
> on device driver writing are just as important to the vital 
> functioning of
> the community as actually writing the code.

Yes.  Although, its important that Max's work actually be accurate. I've 
not reviewed his info, so I don't know whether it is or not.

>
>> If anything I would like to make it more difficult for people to do a 
>> putback, and why I think Garrett is the only person we can actually 
>> call a core contributer at this point.
>
> Since Device Drivers doesn't own a consolidation of it's own, just 
> integrates
> to consolidations such as ON, it doesn't really seem to get a vote on 
> who can
> do a putback - certainly Core Contributor status in a community is not 
> tied to
> putback rights in any consolidation I'm aware of.

Correct.  But in theory we could have our own child gate, with our own 
putback rules, although ultimately getting anything from _that_ gate 
into Nevada would have to follow Nevada rules.

I'm not sure I see a lot of merit in having a child gate though.

    -- Garrett