On Sat, Jul 18, 2009 at 11:51 PM, Alan Burlison<Alan.Burlison at sun.com> wrote: > John Plocher wrote: > >> The existing website app ties webpage editing rights to a "leader" >> roll that is in no way connected to either the Core Contributor >> governance role or the Contributor constitutional one. ?Please don't >> try to rewrite history... > > That misfeature that has long been the source of complaint, that the current > portal does not reflect the Constitution. ?That is one of the things we are > rectifying.
The problem is that there's a "Leaders" link that is broken; it ought to say "Editors" (an accurate description) or be recast to return the Core Contributor list. >>> ?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. >> >> Yet you/your team seem comfortable taking the mandate to unilaterally >> invent and decide things for UG's and P's without said constitutional >> or community backing. ?You can't have it both ways... > > That is incorrect. ?We worked closely with the OGB, basing the initial Auth > implementation on the new Constitution that was presented for ratification > the Community by last year's OGB. ?When it was not ratified, as has already > been explained, we took the CG parts of the old constitution and the P & UG > parts of the unratified Constitution as the basis for the reimplementation. > ?In addition, we communicated all of this repeatedly to the OGB, and the > wider Community. ?A list of just some of the discussions can be found at > http://www.opensolaris.org/os/community/web/#announcements And yet we're still having the discussion, and I at least am still unclear as to what's happening. > The Auth component is just the first step of addressing the problems we have > with the current infrastructure. ?As I have said, we have communicated our > plans and progress to both bthe OGB and the wider Community all the way > through the process, and now with two weeks to deployment the project is > dev-complete and is in the final testing and deployment stages. ?We will not > be making any further changes to the application at this point. We have had 3 conflicting pieces of information given to us regarding the rollout of the auth app. The first is that, when the current OGB took office we were told by Bonnie that: "We had to decide to go with old constitution on website implementation, there will be no time for re-implementation before the end of the current term." Rereading this indicates that it's unclear what this means, and we should have asked for clarification at the time. Did it mean that there was no time for re-implementation, and the then-current implementation would we rolled out as was; or did it mean that the auth app was going to be re-implemented according to the old constitution? I certainly paid more attention to the "no re-implementation" part, and inferred from that that what we currently had implemented was going to be the version that was rolled out. (I also do not recall the question of what to do being asked. If you believe that the design of the webapp is intimately determined by the constitution, why not ask the OGB for guidance?) The second piece of information the OGB and the wider community have had to go on is the version of the auth app and the website made available to us for evaluation and testing. Now you're telling us that the version to be rolled out is (a) going to be different, and (b) is not available to us for evaluation. Then the third piece of information, the transition document, on June 12th. It's taken a little while to realize that in fact, we may have a problem. Yet, I am still unable to work out from the information provided whether we have a problem or not. I am still waiting for an answer to the questions I asked earlier: 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? because I am still unable to determine the answers to all these questions from the documentation available and the discussion on this thread. -- -Peter Tribble http://www.petertribble.co.uk/ - http://ptribble.blogspot.com/
