[ogb-discuss] Restructuring: getting the ball rolling - roles and structure proposal writeup

[John Beck]

Plocher> ... as JBeck would say, it has too many words.

True, but I found it more readable than I expected.  :-)  And I think with
a little structure, it will be more readable still.


Plocher> A) Those who lead development projects ...

Plocher> These assumptions have not been borne out in practice...

Nice: those two paragraphs are particularly helpful for explaining why this
proposal is needed.


Plocher> The default baseline role is Participant...

Plocher> If a Participant desires ...

Plocher> A Contributer has the option of becoming a Voting Contributer ...

Each of those three paragraphs could use a header, either:

Participant

¶1 here

Contributor

¶2 here

Voting Contributor

¶3 here

or a hierarchical breakdown with numbered sub-sections.  That should make
it easier to understand at a glance what is being explained, which is what
I kept wanting/thinking as I was reading it (OK, what part are we on here?).

More substantively, you explain how someone becomes a Participant, but not
how to become a Contributor (only a vague "can be advanced" phrase), nor
how to become a Voting Contributor (not even a hint).  That mechanism is
important, I think.  Do we have such a mechanism in mind?  ISTR that we
discussed several but I don't recall if we settled on any.


Plocher> This change eliminates both the role ...

This paragraph can also use a header ("What has changed?").


Plocher> Independent of these three roles...

As can this ("Attributes").

Most of the rest of the roles section is extra fluff IMO, perhaps fodder
for an appendix.

As for the community structure section, I agree that the text is rough, but
that seems to fit with how we haven't really crystallized our collective
thoughts on this subject yet, and your rough text is a good start.

-- John

http://blogs.sun.com/jbeck