On Fri, Jan 29, 2010 at 3:28 AM, Peter Tribble <peter.tribble at gmail.com> wrote: > However, we're not in that world, and what's missing is a description of how > that world works and what we need to change to get there.
I would like some dialog with Alan and the web team before going too far here, which is why I started with a vision of the future and not a recipe for getting there. I would like the web team to have a chance to understand this change and come up with some suggestions... > Choice 1: scrap the electorate collectives for community groups, and say that > anyone with the leader, affiliate, developer, or facilitator role in > auth qualifies. Unequivocally Scrap It. It was poorly thought out, poorly implemented and poorly understood, and, with the "new" constitution, completely unnecessary. As for "So, either we break our principles" - what principles are they, exactly? IMO, the reason for those "principles" was simply that the "old, current" constitution forced everyone who was a CC to also be a Member of the electorate. Breaking CGs into Governance and NonGovernance parts (Affiliate/Leader -vs- C/CC) was only an implementation mechanism to get us out of that forced 1:1 correspondence. The "new, proposed" constitution doesn't have that 1:1 forced connection between group contributorship/leadership and Membership in the electorate, so we no longer need those old mechanisms. We solved that "principle" problem in another way, so we can easily and safely scrap all that stuff and go back to a simpler world, secure in the knowledge that we won't get an electorate filled with reluctant Members AND that we don't need to maintain two sets of rules. -John
