Hi, Auth will deploy on Aug 3 because we must move off the current portal application. After deployment we will track usage and any issues as is standard practice when releasing software. Changes can always be considered based on new data, and we've said we can support updates next year when and if there is a new constitution. In fact, we've already made updates recently because the proposed new constitution was not ratified, so we don't expect major issues with updates.
In the past, people have been frustrated by the differences between the existing constitution and the current website, so we need to resolve the conflicts to arrive at one reality. We are not there yet because the new constitution didn't pass and we don't have one specification from which to work, but the goal has always been to build a website that expresses community structures as specified in the constitution. There are a small number of ways to architect a solution, and we chose one that enables us to solve the immediate problems while also giving us the flexibility to grow. No solution is perfect and not everyone will agree with all aspects of any implementation, but we can evolve in the future. Thanks, Bonnie Michelle Olson wrote: > Jim Walker wrote: > >> Michelle Olson wrote: >> >> Thanks Michelle. >> >> In preparation for a meeting, I would like to see what we agree on. >> >> It appears there is general consensus from the OGB and members of the >> opensolaris.org website team that Constitutional roles should not be >> used to define website rights. >> Is this true? > > > No, there is no such consensus. The website community core contributors > stand behind the roles as stated in the migration documentation. > > What we agree on is that we need to move to the new infrastructure > because the existing site is being decommissioned and we need to help > the community make the move and learn the new applications. > >> >> If true, what steps can we take to make this a reality? >> >> What are the hurdles we must clear? > > > The hurdles we need to clear are to learn how to use the new system and > communicate it to our community groups, projects, and user groups. We > also must promote the benefits of the draft constitution, so that the > electorate will approve it when it is on the next ballot. The website > team has already agreed to retrofit the data next Spring if we manage to > ratify a new Constitution. > >> >> We can do it in phases if needed. > > > No, we need to read the information, digest it, and learn to use the new > system and how to teach others to use it. All the design information has > been on the web community for years here (we started auth in June of 2007): > http://opensolaris.org/os/community/web/ > > See the section on Website Transition please. > >> >> Also, if there are Constitutional issues, which I don't see yet (see >> below). >> Then, I don't see why the OGB can't put forth a specific Constitutional >> interruption policy that allows progress until a new Constitution is >> approved. >> >> Also, I added some comments to the bugs. >> >>> This first one is filed against the auth webapp for an exception list >>> related >>> to the concern about Contributor status being for life. >>> >>> http://defect.opensolaris.org/bz/show_bug.cgi?id=10063 >> >> >> I added this to the bug: >> >> ---- >> >> Constitutional roles should not be used to define website rights. Period. >> A new term like "Editor" should be used to establish website editing >> rights. > > > I saw this comment and I have no idea what it has to do with the content > of the bug. This is more complicated than your tone implies, so I'd like > you to strike the 'Period.' from the description for the benefit of > everyone who has worked hard on this for many years (you have only just > now joined this conversation ongoing for 18+ months). > > >> ---- >> >>> >>> This second bug is an OGB bug (that could very well be a duplicate, >>> but I'm >>> not sure) against the Constitution for a separate, new role called >>> Member >>> that includes only the voting right. I believe I've correctly stated >>> in the >>> bug description that the auth app already has the data structures in >>> place >>> (via the electorate collective) and we just need to get the member role >>> defined and approved in the new Constitution. Jim Gris, let me know >>> if I've >>> mis-characterized things in the description of this bug. >>> >>> http://defect.opensolaris.org/bz/show_bug.cgi?id=10062 >> >> >> I added this to the bug: >> >> ---- >> >> Section 3.1 of the OpenSolaris Constitution (see below) clearly >> defines the >> Member role and its equivalence to the Core Contributor role relative >> to voting. >> >> So, I think this bug can be closed since the Member role is already >> available >> for use. >> >> --- >> >> 3.1. Structure. The OpenSolaris Community is structured as an >> organization of >> volunteer participants in which Members are given the right to vote on >> Community-wide decisions, the most significant of which is to elect an >> OpenSolaris Governing Board (OGB) to be responsible for overall >> day-to-day >> operations and representation of the organization to third parties. >> The OGB, in >> turn, delegates the organization and decision-making for specific >> OpenSolaris >> activities, such as product development and marketing tasks, through the >> creation of Community Groups. Each Community Group consists of >> participants and >> contributors, a subset of whom become long-term Core Contributors and >> are given >> the responsibility for governance within the Community Group. Finally, >> the set >> of all individuals that have been named by one or more Community >> Groups as Core >> Contributors are the Members who are given the right to vote on >> Community-wide >> decisions. >> >> ---- > > > Right, rather than close this bug as you suggest (I knew it was > imperfectly written), I'd like to develop it into the real bug that we > have, if possible. The community didn't approve the new Constitution, so > we don't have separation between CC and Member and that is a critical > part of what we need to separate governance (voting in annual elections) > from operations (voting in your community to grant other rights, like > juicing source or whatever, which always leads to granting access to > resources). > > thanks, > Michelle > > > > _______________________________________________ > website-discuss mailing list > website-discuss at opensolaris.org
