Peter Tribble wrote: > I have two key concerns: > > 1. Whatever roles apply on the website should be completely independent > of governance. Neither should imply the other. Therefore connecting the > ability to do operations on the website with ones' constitutional voting > rights > is a mistake. (I note that the current auth app separates electoral > responsibilities > from website responsibilities - something that the above document doesn't make > clear.) > > 2. Similarly, standing within a collective should be independent of > website editing > rights. Collectives may wish to designate a small group of people (who > may simply > have an administrative role) to edit the website. Other models are possible. > > Generally, the guiding principle should be that we shouldn't tie roles in one > functional area with roles in a different area. I would have hoped that we > would > have learned from the mistake in the original constitution of conflating > rights > within an individual collective and community-wide rights. If we wish to give > a > user editing rights or commit rights, then we give them edit rights or commit > rights, rather than hoping that a standardized role would work. >
Hi, Peter ... There are two requirements we must implement -- the written constitution and the reality of how the community actually functions. We are merging the two. A primary role of Auth is to provide single sign-on across the multiple applications that make up opensolaris.org. So, a base set of roles is defined. That set of roles is flexible enough to be interpreted by the different client applications integrated with Auth. Some of the role names are predetermined by the constitution, and others have been added to fill in the gaps. Some rights are defined by the constitution, such as voting, and some are defined by individual client applications, such as XWiki, SCM Console, etc. A future constitution could define the base set of roles and collectives, but that is not the reality today. Jim -- http://blogs.sun.com/jimgris/
