Peter Tribble wrote: > The structures apply to the community governance; website operations > aren't directly tied to that.
That's stated as if it is fact, unfortunately it isn't, not for the current implementation and not for the new one either. As I've already said, we have merely migrated the existing data, not restructured the roles. >> In the case of Projects, they are only loosely defined in the Constitution, >> and User Groups not at all. We've therefore largely followed the lead of >> the proposed new Constitution, which as we all know failed to be ratified. >> That seemed to be the most prudent course, as the new Constitution was >> drafted in light of the experience of the Community in setting up and >> running both Projects and User Groups. > > And, by and large, the user group and project areas work well because > they aren't entangled by the constitution. They are, at least by the Constitution that wasn't ratified, because as I said, that's what we based them on. If that Constitution is ratified at some point then the problem will reoccur with Ps and UGs - the issue is only apparently absent at the moment because the current Constitution says very little about those two collective types. >> As for the issue with CG Contributors, one possible constitutional fix seems >> fairly obvious - remove the 'for life' nature of Contributor status, either >> by creating a new role for active contributors, or perhaps re-purposing the >> Emeritus Contributor status for people who are no longer actively >> contributing. However as I have said, that will require constitutional >> changes. > > There's only an issue if contributor grants are misused for website > access control. I think 'misused' misrepresents the situation. We will be migrating the data to a new system. The structures we have defined in the new system have been unchanged from when the current Constitution was ratified. If you want to change the relationships, then the constitution needs to be changed to break the relationship between voting rights and Community roles. Until such a change is approved by the Community, we have no mandate to change anything. And with all due respect, the OGB doesn't have the power to unilaterally make that change either, it needs ratifying by the Community as a whole. >> I suggest the correct forum for any such discussion is ogb-discuss, rather >> than website-dicuss, although I see this thread is currently being >> cross-posted to both. > > The reason it's being cross-posted is because there is a question as to how > the new website will be using constitutional roles. There are no > constitutional > issues here. That seems not to be the case because you feel the Constitution and Community roles are being 'misused' in some way. > I, for one, am still unsure as to how the new website will work. So I'll > ask: > > 1. Will the new system store Core Contributor grants? > 2. Will the new system use Core Contributor grants for access control? > 3. Will the new system store Contributor grants? > 4. Will the new system use Contributor grants for access control? > > The correct answers (in my view, and clearly in many other peoples view) > would be Yes, No, Yes, No. > > It appears from the transition document that the answers are going to be Yes, > Yes, Yes, and Yes. Hence the problem. As Bonnie has already said, the Auth application is configured to reflect the current Constitution, and we won't be changing the implementation until the Constitution is changed. We have no mandate to do otherwise. And in addition, we will not be making any further changes to the Auth application before deployment (other than bug fixes). > My own testing of the current implementation available to us is that 1 and 2 > are clearly Yes and No (the electorate is listed separately, and a Leader role > is present), and I'm not sure about 3 and 4, although it looks as though it > may > be No and No (there is a community contributor role, but it can be assigned > from > the auth app so can't really be a Contributor grant). In that sense, > what I've seen > from the auth app made available to us for testing and evaluation is > that it's working > fine - the question is whether what's going to be rolled out is different. There are some changes, because the system currently on auth.oso reflects the unratified Constitution. The final version will be, as has already been explained, a combination of the CG structures from the current Constitution and the P and UG structures from the unratified one. -- Alan Burlison --
