[ogb-discuss] Community Simplification

[Alex Leverington]

[re-posting because unless you have a Mac, the original was garbled]

Replies are in line (posted to bug as well):

(In reply to comment #0)
 > Community Groups
 > ----------------
 > *  The term "community group" in the Constitution shall be  
interpreted as a
 > descriptive phrase for a class of groupings in the OpenSolaris  
community. It
 > will no longer be used on its own to describe a group.
 > *  All existing activities in the OpenSolaris community shall be  
classified as
 > one of the following four kinds of community group:
 >    -  Project, a group of Members and others creating and/or  
maintaining an
 > identifiable unit of code
 >    -  Consolidation, a group of Members and others aggregating  
Projects under a
 > particular theme or objective  [SP: Should Distributions be  
considered
 > Consolidations?]
 >    -  Special Interest Group, a group of Members and others  
involved in
 > Projects and Consolidations and sharing a common interest
 >    -  User Group, a regionally-based group having a shared interest  
in
 > OpenSolaris

I don't think this section redefine anything - they're simply setting  
a precedent. As-is, your proposal in this section is already in-place,  
it's just that it's being done via the prefix of the community group  
or project name :) (although some aren't marked as consolidation)

 >
 > Transitional Strategy
 > ---------------------
 > *  All Community Groups formed in the restructuring shall be  
devised as per the
 > constitution but without the naming of any new Core Contributors.  
Instead,
 > existing Core Contributors will be recognised as engaged in the new  
community
 > groups. All Core Contributors who do not gain such recognition  
shall be
 > recognised as At Large members.
 > *  Community Groups which do not secure the required 3 core  
contributors will
 > be merged with others or dissolved, at the discretion of their  
participants.

This seems to present some logistical issues I would like to see  
clarified.

What is the time frame for core contributors to gain recognition in  
new projects (looks like 2 yrs is the CC expiration)?

What is the likelihood of a CC not becoming recognized into a CG?  
(...ie, this seems like a mute requirement)

+1 on dissolving or merging communities which don't meet requirements

 >
 > Membership Committee
 > --------------------
 > *  A new OGB Committee will be formed to manage membership  
applications (the
 > "Membership Committee"). The OGB delegates its Constitutional  
discretion over
 > the confirmation of Core Contributor grants to the Membership  
Committee.
 > *  Community Groups wishing to request Core Contributor grants for  
their
 > Contributors will need to ensure their own process demonstrably  
meets the
 > quality control requirements of the Membership Committee, which  
will defer or
 > decline grants in cases where substantial historic contribution is  
not
 > demonstrated. Specifically, no further grants will be made on the  
basis of
 > reputation, expected future contribution or job role.

Is this something that could be done further down the road. Do you  
foresee the availability of bodies and their commitment create and  
operate this new committee?

We should also be aware this will affect the people and time of  
existing CG-CCs, require them to create and utilize a QC process to  
ensure they maintain >= 3 CCs.

This also doesn't consider that there will be many groups, such as  
those in advocacy, SIGs, and UGs, where a CC contribution will pale in  
comparison to the contribution of someone on say, the IPS project. So  
now you're stuck with JUDGING contributions. In arena "A" you have a  
CC who makes blog posts and attends events, and arena "B" you have a  
guy who's building a new filesystem but even if he got through the  
contributor process he doesn't get a CC grant because his CG is large  
and already overwhelmed by the QC process for maintaining the existing  
CCs. The minutia would be overwhelming and people will not walk, but  
RUN away!

-1, -1

Although, I could be misinterpreting or taking this out of context.  
Can you elaborate on this Membership Committee and QC process?

 >
 > Future Strategy
 > ---------------
 > *  When future community groups are formed, core contributor grants  
will only
 > be given under exceptional circumstances and §7.4.3 will be  
considered to mean
 > that the initial core contributors of any new community group must  
be existing
 > core contributors from elsewhere in the community. This resolution  
will need
 > §8.3 to be modified at a future date so in the interim the OGB  
elects to set
 > it aside per OGB-2008/00x.
 > *  Per §7.12, any new group will need to ensure it has "grown" at  
least three
 > core contributors by the time the grants of its founders expire.

What does exceptional circumstances mean (+1 if it's specifically  
defined)?

I think it would be wise to define exceptional circumstances. The  
definition can be amended if it doesn't work, right?
If everyone can agree on the initial definition, then everyone can  
agree to not give CC grants upon a CG formation.

 >
 > Housekeeping
 > ------------
 > *  Where necessary, the OGB will make further resolutions to enact  
the
 > decisions made in this resolution. In the event that the necessary  
resolutions
 > interpret the Constitution in a contested way, the OGB will still  
enact those
 > resolutions but will prepare Constitutional Amendments for  
consideration at a
 > future membership meeting.
 > *  Per §7.8, all of the initial members of a new community group  
will be
 > granted Contributor status by the OGB. The group will then be  
expected over
 > time to "grow its own" core contributors.

How much time is given to grow?


On May 14, 2008, at 8:02 PM, Simon Phipps wrote:

> I just posted very rough notes providing an overview of my thinking on
> restructuring how we form community groups and grant membership.
> You'll find it at http://defect.opensolaris.org/bz/show_bug.cgi?
> id=1937 where it's possible to comment and make counter-proposals.
> After a discussion period we'll promote the resulting resolution to an
> OGB agenda.
>
> S.
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> ogb-discuss mailing list
> ogb-discuss at opensolaris.org
> http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/ogb-discuss