On 01/18/10 05:49, Peter Tribble wrote: > The project instantiation document is how the website team actually > do things; we could have governance and implementation as > two documents or merge them into one. > > The infrastructure lifecycle doc only covers the actual creation of > the group post-approval. So I think that what we're looking at here > is a description of the steps to be taken to approve the creation > of a group (of any sort) and change its status. It's the *approval* > steps that are at issue - there's a governance step at the beginning > that results in the decision to create/change/terminate a group. > Once that's concluded, a message is sent to the infrastructure > team to implement the decision - at which point JimG's project > instantiation document kicks in >
hi ... If the OGB wants to simplify governance policies (voting, etc) for infrastructure life cycles, that would be helpful. Then I can easily embed that info into the life cycles document I already wrote (if the new constitution passes). This way we'll have *one* place to send people for all infrastructure issues. We don't need two docs, though. I wrote the life cycles doc for three reasons: the OGB asked me to, I needed much more detailed information to set up collectives than what our previous docs had asked for, and I needed all the information for all collectives in one place. http://hub.opensolaris.org/bin/view/Main/site-infrastructure-lifecycles Jim
