Hello, On Wed, Oct 30, 2013 at 9:54 PM, Máirín Duffy duffy@redhat.com wrote:
- I would like to propose instead that we maintain a nine voting member
roster, but require that at least five of the members be able to directly represent the server community. By this, I specifically would like to require any or all of the following requirements be met by a 'server community' representative (under which all of our current 'server community' reps and other members qualify as well):
- member has worked professionally as a system administrator for a
deployment of at least 10 production servers
- member has been involved significantly as a contributor to an
enterprise Linux distribution or enterprise management product for Linux servers.
I don't think specifically these requirements are reasonable/really justifiable as written (what about 9 servers? does someone working exclusively on a specialized compiler optimization on a compiler shipped in an enterprise Android/SUSE distribution qualify?), and more generally the huge amount of effort that would be required to get this kind of requirements "right" is in itself an indication that this approach is too prescriptive: I'll gladly accept a less targeted voting body if it will give us one more month to do actual work.
And, as mentioned elsewhere in the thread, they are not really enforceable anyway.
So, to give an alternative proposal: "Active participant in the server WG" would be sufficiently targeted for me, simple enough (... and equally unenforceable). Mirek