[ogb-discuss] OGB 2007/003: Communities with < 3 Core Contributors

[Keith M Wesolowski]

On Mon, May 21, 2007 at 11:46:10PM -0700, Ben Rockwood wrote:

> I would submit the following observations in this matter:
> 
> 1) In the early days of the project communities, and later projects, 
> were created not for the purposes of governance or contribution, but 
> rather to provide mailing (discussion) lists.

Agreed.

> 2) These entities (Communities or Projects) without leadership can be 
> thought of more appropriately as Special Interest Groups (SIGs) rather 
> than contributory bodies.

Ok.

> 3) The discussions within these SIGs may or may not result in one or 
> more contributory efforts worthy of full project status.

Agreed.

> 4) Failing the above, these groups simply had no where else to go.

This is where we part ways.  The Constitution clearly states that the
OpenSolaris Community is *defined* to be the collection of Community
Groups, and that all work is done by those Groups by forming projects.

Nowhere else to go?  Not so.  They can and should be absorbed into an
appropriate Community Group as an internal discussion list, SIG,
committee, or other structures that Group's leadership prefers.  It's
not clear to me that the At-Large Community Group could fill this
purpose if no other Group were appropriate, but a flexible
interpretation of the Constitution might permit it.  Perhaps Roy is
reading and would be willing to share what he had in mind here - it
seems to me that the intent of this Group was only to recognise
contributors who otherwise would not be.

> I would make the following recommendations to be considered by the OGB 
> with reguards to 2007/003:
> 
> 1) That a new Incubator Community be established to provide a home for 
> efforts that may or may not blossom.  This community should be staffed 
> with Core Contributors appointed by the OGB by whatever means it 
> determines appropriate.  These leaders should provide refuge for 
> fledgling projects that fall outside the scope of existing Communities 
> by supplying them with a Project or Initiative for work and discussion,  
> and provide support to these groups as they grow and eventually are 
> birthed out of the Incubator Community.

The OGB cannot appoint anyone to lead a Group; only the Group itself
can do so.  And a proposal for a Community Group has to include at
least three such initial Core Contributors (see 7.4).  You're welcome
to submit this proposal in accordance with those requirements
(including that for public comment), and the OGB will give it due
consideration.

However, given the scope you've described here, which isn't really a
scope at all, I would be disinclined to support the formation of such
a Group.  There are 43 existing Groups (many quite broad in scope)
able to sponsor a project; if there is no Group willing to sponsor a
particular project, there's probably a reason for it.  That reason
isn't likely that there exists no appropriate Group but that the
project is not considered desirable, is not properly focused, or is
redundant or in conflict with other work.  At the time I write this, a
grand total of 0 projects have been proposed under the new process and
failed to find a sponsor; why should we solve this hypothetical
problem?

> 2) An addition to the existing framework for SIGs, being defined as 
> non-contributory entities provided solely for discussion and being 
> outside the direct scope of any existing Community.   These SIGs should 
> not conform to the standard definitions layed out in the constitution, 
> and rather than "Contributors" or "Core Contributors" should rather have 
> "Stewards" who tend to the duties of the SIG (moderation, list creation, 
> page updates, etc).  These SIGs and Stewards would fall under the 
> authority of the OGB, and not be exempt in any reguard.

Why do you feel the SIGs need to be outside the scope of any Group?

> 3) That the OGB solicit and establish proper leadership (Contrib and 
> Core) for existing communities that are require but currently lack it, 
> by whatever method the OGB finds acceptable.  The Storage Community is 
> such a case.  I would propose that Core Contribs from its subordinate 
> projects be elevated to these roles.

We're already trying to do this with several of the leaderless Groups.
Ultimately, however, it's up to the membership to step up and take
charge.  I hope that the impetus for proper Group leadership will come
from within the Groups themselves and from project teams which now
need the backing of a Group to proceed.  I would certainly encourage
the OGB to entertain petitions from participants frustrated by a lack
of leadership in their Groups.  But the OGB has neither the power nor
the ability to compel leadership from others.  If no one wants to lead
these Groups, we will assume, correctly in my view, that the
OpenSolaris community does not believe they are needed.

> I humbly request that this matter be added to the agenda of the next OGB 
> meeting for consideration and review.

Most definitely.

-- 
Keith M Wesolowski		"Sir, we're surrounded!" 
FishWorks			"Excellent; we can attack in any direction!"