On Thu, Sep 17, 2009 at 11:25 AM, Jim Grisanzio <Jim.Grisanzio at sun.com> wrote:
Reporting is good, but it alone does not address the problem addressed by http://wiki.genunix.org/wiki/index.php/OGB_2009/007, which requires some level of OGB interaction, as one example. >> 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? Help me find the right word for verifying that indeed a community vote for this C or CC has taken place according to the constitution and ensuring that policies (like 2009/007) have been followed. I chose "ratification" because it seemed to me to capture this task, but I am not at all wedded to the term. > >> 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. And how does the OGB determine this? After the fact when someone floods the membership rolls with dead people from Chicago? After the fact when someone realizes that the foo group simply rubber stamps everyone on their mailing list without verifying that they have contributed anything at all? With no tools in place to help the secretary monitor what is happening, we are simply asking for disaster. Generating a monthly report is a good thing to do, but it is a bit like closing the barn door after the horses have escaped... > >> 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. In your proposed workflow, it is one CC (the facilitator) who makes the decision, without any oversight. Add the oversight by inserting the secretary into the approval sequence and I'm happy. Bonus points for making it possible for the secretary to indicate things like "the foo group gets auto-rubber-stamped because they have shown they can be relied upon to do things right" and I'm even more happy. >> Some of the per-collective use cases I envision* are: >> >> ? ?"everything done by the secretary", >> > > What do you mean by "everything" in this context? Like today, where the entire "record a potential contributor as a real one in the system" process is done by the secretary or an OGB board member. >> ? ?"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. I believe this is part of a good solution, but it is incomplete, as it opens up the process to abuse or mistakes that can't be detected until after the fact. > >> ? ?"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. > ... > No. Replace the Facilitator. The OGB Secretary should not do Facilitation > for a CG. > ... > 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? Much easier said than done. Building a system that won't function at all in the absence of a trained and proactive facilitator when we know from experience that groups rarely have them seems shortsighted. > My proposal does not address issues the OGB should already be > dealing with as normal governance operations (such as your list above). If you are going to introduce mechanisms that touch on governance operations, you need to make sure that they address the needs of the OGB, and not only the needs of the website transition team. -John
