[ogb-discuss] RFC: Emancipation Community

[John Sonnenschein]

On Tue, May 13, 2008 at 1:31 PM, Nicholas Solter
<Nicholas.Solter at sun.com> wrote:
> Simon,
>
>
>
>  Simon Phipps 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.
>  >
>  >
>  > 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?
>  >
>
>  I agree that it's too early, at community group creation time, to name
>  CCs. My experience in creating the HA Clusters community group last year
>  was that we somewhat arbitrarily chose some people, and then a few
>  months later had to go back and reassess, which led to some people being
>  "demoted" to contributors.
>
>  That said, I don't think that naming existing CCs from other CGs solves
>  the core problem, that of predicting who's actually going to do the work
>  of a CC in the new group. Furthermore, I think it's quite a stretch to
>  interpret the constitution in the way you suggest. If we don't like
>  something in the constitution, let's change the constitution rather than
>  attempting creative interpretations that are clearly not the original
>  intent of the wording.
>
>  Thanks,
>  Nick

I think this particular group is in the unique position that we are
trying to collect work that's being done all over  under a community
banner, so the people I named as CC's have /already/ contributed in a
fundamental way, but generally I agree that most communities are
forced to name at least some CC's arbitrarily.

Or perhaps this community oughtn't be in a unique position. Id est,
communities should spawn out of projects rather than vice versa, core
contributors pulled from the projects that the community is composed
of.


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