John Plocher wrote: > 1) A new contributor is identified in a collective. >
No, not identified. A new C or CC is voted on by the CG`s CCs. All the important decisions about CCs are made at the CG level by other CCs. > 2) The facilitator in that collective [does some web stuff] > I don`t know what the web stuff is. > and a new contributor is born. > No. My impression is that the Facilitator has to then go to ogb-discuss to alert the OGB that his has occurred and the OGB makes sure the new CC signs off on the policy that this current OGB put in place to make sure that new CCs realize that they should vote with their new CC status. Now, currently, the Facilitators go to ogb-discuss for that voting sign off bit and for the Secretary to put the new name into poll. All I am suggesting is that last step be done by the Facilitator. That`s it. > 3) Somehow/sometime a report is generated saying > "here are the new contributors". > We can generate a report so everything can be tracked. However, all the grants will be displayed on the site as well. > The missing link is that no process has been suggested for how the OGB > Secretary's constitutional role interacts with the above or how any > mixups can be addressed. > Mix ups are generally addressed on list, just like anything else. > If, instead, the workflow was extended to > > 1) A new contributor is identified in a collective. > 2A) The facilitator in that collective [does some web stuff] > and a new contributor REQUEST IS ADDED TO THE > OGB SECRETARY'S WORK QUEUE > You mean the request to enter the name in poll, right? What else is the "request" for since the decision was already made at the CG level? > 2b) THE OGB SECRETARY [does some web stuff] > and new contributors are born or remanded back > to facilitators so mixups can be addressed. > Remanded back for what reason? Like forgetting a user name or something? The voting decisions are made at the CG level, not the OGB. Jim
