On Sat, 12 Sep 2009, Peter Tribble wrote: > On Thu, Sep 10, 2009 at 4:49 PM, Jim Grisanzio <Jim.Grisanzio at sun.com> > wrote: >> Peter Tribble wrote: >>> >>> As I understand it, each community group has a matching electorate >>> collective. >> >> Yes. >>> >>> What's the rule for granting write access to the data in those >>> electorate collectives? >> >> Facilitators would be most efficient mechanism to handle this data entry >> task for their CGs. > > Perhaps. Perhaps not. > >>> Presumably *not* the same as for the auth data in the regular collective. >> >> Correct. Leaders would not have access to the Electorate data. Only >> Facilitators. > > My recollection here is that auth/the new website didn't model the > facilitator role. > > I think you've answered the primary question though - in the same way > that the electorate data is distinct from the regular CG data, edit access > is also distinct. > >>> I think the scheme is fine; my concern would be ensuring that only >>> "approved" >>> users (presumably the facilitators would be) can edit the data - >> >> The constitution says that the OGB appoints the CG Facilitators, so, >> presumably, they would be approved by the board. > > As facilitators; the role as currently used is a communication conduit, > adding grant editing would be an extension that may or may not be > a good thing.
I am concerned about this as well. This seems like a pretty big change to the facilitation role, and removes oversite from the OGB. I don't think we (the OGB) want that, do we? Have facilitators asked for this? Would they all fully understand the repercussions for their actions? There would be no oversite like there is now. It would require action on the OGB after the fact to review (which is easy to put off, and then never actually do...) > >>> and presumably >>> the OGB secretary would get update access to everything, just in case a >>> facilitator is unavailable for whatever reason. >> >> We could consider granting the OGB secretary access to the individual >> Electorates as an RFE for next year. In the meantime, if a Facilitator is >> not available to enter the data, we can make the update manually on our end >> until the OGB appoints a new Facilitator or the current Facilitator becomes >> available. > > I would expect that we would start out with the OGB secretary being the > only person with admin rights; they could then grant edit rights to others. I agree. I don't think starting out with many editors for this very important data is the correct thing to do at all. > > (One thing that would be nice is the ability to give someone edit rights > [or even admin rights] to *all* electorate collectives. Would make the > transfer to a new secretary, or a temporary standin, or a membership > committee, much easier.) > >>> And presumably there's a log >>> that's accessible so that we can review who's done what. >> >> A log can be provided, but as I explained earlier the relationships data >> will be displayed in the open shortly. So, that would include CG-P sponsor >> relationships, Contributors, Core Contributors, etc. > > At a minimum, a change history is necessary. You can't see what actions > have been taken without it. I don't want to have to visit every electorate > collective page and manually try and work out who's been added in the > last week. and it should be easily viewable, at least by the OGB. Valerie -- Valerie Fenwick, http://blogs.sun.com/bubbva/ @bubbva Solaris Security Technologies, Developer, Sun Microsystems, Inc. 17 Network Circle, Menlo Park, CA, 94025.
