On 07/19/09 01:08 PM, Peter Tribble wrote: > 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."
Just to clarify: I sent email to ogb-private on 4/22 with an update about how we were going to move forward after the new constitution did not pass. The quote in the 4/23 OGB meeting minutes is not a quote from my email. It apparently is a paraphrase by someone in the meeting that was incorrectly recorded in the minutes as a quote from me. In that email I also offered to attend an OGB meeting to discuss, but no one asked me to do that. Bonnie > > 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. >
