Peter Tribble wrote: > On Thu, Sep 17, 2009 at 7:25 PM, Jim Grisanzio <Jim.Grisanzio at sun.com> > wrote: > >> I also said earlier >> in the thread we`d consider an RFE involving the OGB secretary to make >> changes in the auth system. >> > That's not something that should be left to an RFE. That's the starting > position.
In response to my proposal you said (the second mail in this thread) you were ok with the idea but wanted to make sure that only approved users (the Facilitators) would be able to edit the data, and that the OGB Secretary should be able to access the Electorates to update the data just in case a Facilitator is unavailable. And then you wanted logs for reporting, etc. Have I understood your initial position correctly? If so, that's not the position your are taking now. > Current practice and the constitution say that it's the secretary's > responsibility; therefore the initial state should be that the OGB secretary > (and any extras they care to designate) have edit and admin rights to > all electorate collectives; then they're able to do whatever delegation > is appropriate. > Any extras they care to designate should get edit /and/ admin rights to the Electorate database? I don't think the constitution gives that power of delegation to the OGB Secretary. I will have to check again. >> But I thought the OGB members wanted reporting? We can provide that. Plus, >> all of the recorded grants are public, anyway. >> > Reporting is essential, whatever the scheme. > > >>> 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. >> > > I haven't seen any objections to delegated responsibility; I am not talking about delegated responsibility. I am talking about distributed responsibility -- of a simple clerical task among the most trusted people in the community: Core Contributors. > the > problem is that you're forcing responsibility onto facilitators and > cutting the OGB, the secretary, and the constitutional requirements > they have to work under out of the loop. > I am trying to make it easier for the OGB Secretary by distributing a clerical task among people who are already involved with this and who are closer to the issues in their respective CGs. It's one task for each CG Facilitator, whereas it's many clerical tasks for one OGB Secretary. > We should be able to delegate tasks, but shouldn't be forced to. > Looking further forward, we may simply delegate to a membership > committee and let them sort it out. > Why would a membership committee be necessary when we already have an OGB? Jim
