[ogb-discuss] RFC: Emancipation Community

[John Sonnenschein]

On Mon, May 12, 2008 at 1:51 PM, Simon Phipps <webmink at sun.com> wrote:
> John S:  This is in no way a comment on the work you or the people you
>  name are doing. It is merely picking up on the pressure for reform
>  that was expressed at the Summit.
>

Understood, no offense taken

>
>
>  On May 10, 2008, at 18:51, John Plocher wrote:
>
>  > John Sonnenschein wrote:
>  >> Yes, of course ( Sorry Joerg, I didn't mean to slight you ). John
>  >> Plocher as well ought to be added to the list.
>  >
>  > Thank you, but no - the core contributor grants should be
>  > restricted to  those who actually contribute - those of us
>  > who simply pontificate should remain simply "interested" or
>  > maybe "contributors".
>  >
>  > I'll let you run with the charter as you see fit since you
>  > are closer to the problem than I am...
>
>  I think we need to discuss this at an OGB meeting with respect to
>  Article VII of the Constitution. It seems to me that a new CG should
>  start out with /no/ CC grants of its own, and that they should be
>  earned by contribution within the CG.
>
>  To this end I suggest we explore interpreting §7.4.3 to mean that the
>  initial CCs of any new CG must be existing CCs from elsewhere in the
>  community. With the freedom we have under §7.8, we would then give all
>  of the initial members Contributor grants. We would also need to
>  interpret §8.3 so that the initial outside CCs had CC votes in the new
>  CG until their next renewal. This would have the handy side effect
>  under §7.12 of meaning that any CG that has failed to grow its own CCs
>  by the time the grants of its founders expire would automatically be
>  wound up.
>
>  Views?
>
>  S.

I'm not entirely sure that that's the correct way to go about it. An
existing core grant from somewhere else in the community implies that
a lot of work ( and by extension free time ) goes in to some other
facet of development.

Then, if the only way a community can form is from other CC's their
time is split, and perhaps unnecessarily. Furthermore if the community
is instantiated in order to collect people who spend the majority of
their time on something ( like emancipation ) but haven't become
active enough in other communities, they'd have no core grants at all,
despite doing a lot of work to further the goals of the over-arching
OpenSolaris meta-community.

I generally support the idea of reorganizing communities and the way
the community:project:CC relationship goes, but I'm not sure that
denying newly instantiated communities the ability to name CC's at
inception is the correct first step

I don't know, these are just my initial thought on the idea, I could
be completely off the deep end.


-- 
PGP Public Key 0x437AF1A1
Available on hkp://pgp.mit.edu