John Plocher wrote: > On Thu, Sep 17, 2009 at 8:48 AM, Jim Grisanzio <Jim.Grisanzio at sun.com> > wrote: > >> Then I am confused by the responses from Valerie, Jim, and Peter earlier in >> this thread. >> > > Read the rest of my note -
Read the responses I was responding to. I proposed a simple solution of having the Facilitators do the clerical task of clicking the button to make a new CC inside their CG (since they already live in there in Auth) after whatever governance processes were followed out on list or with the OGB. Initially that seemed ok, but as the thread progressed it seems that the Facilitators were cut out in favor of a centralized approach. I intentionally suggested a distributed approach since it is far more efficient. > the disconnect I am seeing is that your > proposed workflow seems to completely bypass the secretary, with no > avenue for them to perform their constitutionally mandated oversight > responsibility. I am not trying to bypass anyone. I am trying to make it easier on one person to manage a flood of stuff coming at him/her right before the election (which happens every single election and is likely to happen again given the extreme complexity of our governance system). I also said earlier in the thread we`d consider an RFE involving the OGB secretary to make changes in the auth system. That would probably improve the work flow in the long run, which is what you seem to be suggesting here. Work flow issues were not discussed earlier (at least not in the detail you are suggesting). However, what I am trying to suggest is a lightweight solution to start and something we can do right now. > After-the-fact reports or email messages are a > band-aid, But I thought the OGB members wanted reporting? We can provide that. Plus, all of the recorded grants are public, anyway. > and should not be confused with a well designed membership > management system. > > Yes, we all want to delegate the majority of the work to the > collectives and their facilitators, I see others on the OGB suggesting otherwise. This is confusing. We will not be able to build anything unless the OGB speaks with one voice. > but we also want the OGB secretary > to be able to handhold, train and step in as needed to make sure that > things are going smoothly. > I don`t think this is unreasonable in the long run. However, that`s not the same as having that one person actually /doing/ the clerical work right now. > The "requirements" as I see them are for a web-based workflow system > that allows the various responsibilities to transition seamlessly and > naturally between the secretary and the facilitators as the > secretary/OGG determines what works best. > > What responsibilities are these? The nomination of someone to > contributor status, the voting by the CC's in a community on that > nomination, the communication of that vote to the secretary, and the > secretary's ratification of that vote. > Ratification of the vote? I don`t see that in the Constitution. Did the process change? > The first of these (nomination, community voting, communication) are > things that a well functioning community should be doing by itself - > but not all communities are well functioning. If a CG is not well functioning, the OGB can step in since the OGB quite literally approves all CGs. > The last step > (ratification) is just as important, and should not be ignored or > swept under the rug. > What is getting swept under the rug? CCs in CGs make the decisions as to who gets to be a CC. Not the OGB Secretary. > Some of the per-collective use cases I envision* are: > > "everything done by the secretary", > What do you mean by "everything" in this context? > "everything done by the facilitators", > It`s not everything (if I understand your intent). All I am suggesting is this: leave all the governance processes in place but make this one tiny little change -- have the Facilitators click on the button to enter a new CC in the CG`s Electorate. That`s it. > "hmm, some groups have fantastic facilitators who > can do their jobs, but some don't", > Then replace them. That is the OGB`s responsibility since the OGB appoints the Facilitators. > "this group doesn't have a facilitator, so the secretary > needs to do the work", > No. Replace the Facilitator. The OGB Secretary should not do Facilitation for a CG. > "oops, a poorly performing facilitator left and now the > secretary has to untangle the mess left behind" > No. Just replace the Facilitator. Since the constitution says quite clearly that the OGB appoints the Facilitators, then why could`t the OGB just appoint a new Facilitator? > "we need to bootstrap a new facilitator", > Yes. > "the secretary wants delegate everything but the > ratification", > > What is ratification? > "the membership committee gets to do the ratification", > There is no membership committee. > "someone needs to train a new secretary", and of course, > If the OGB Secretary leaves, then, yes, I think the OGB should get a new one and train that person. > "the facilitator takes care of nominations, voting and > communication, while the secretary does the > ratification"... > What is ratification? > Over time, every one of these states (and probably more) will be > required as a consequence of the collective's (and their > facilitator's) natural ebb and flow. > > Please show how these needs are addressed by your proposal. My proposal does not address issues the OGB should already be dealing with as normal governance operations (such as your list above). I am simply trying to distribute a clerical task among people who have already demonstrated that they have earned the trust of their CGs and do so in a way that will allow us to finish this website transition on a timely basis. That`s it. Jim
