On Apr 16, 2009, at 23:34, Peter Tribble wrote: > That would be under the current constitution, which does have > facilitators. > The new draft version didn't, although I thought that each > collective ought > to have a named point of contact (which is really what the > facilitator role is). > And also the new constitution didn't have the hierarchy of a (small) > set of > CGs above a (large) set of projects, but is much flatter. In that > real world, > every CG, project, and user group would be the same and all would have > a facilitator - making quite a large population. > > So what I would like to see is a clearer understanding of what the > facilitators > are really for, in a way that transcends the organisational minutiae > embedded > in the current constitution and isn't so explicitly tied to a specific > structure.
More generally, this is my major concern about the attitude that says the revision of the constitution is a "tired topic" to be ignored for as long as possible (with or without a community poll to add to the delay). We have already had several items arise which refer to the current constitution, which we know to be broken in a way that puts it beyond in-place repair. If we do new things now with that document as our reference, the work will need to be refactored in the future when the new one is introduced. I therefore request that the OGB consider its strategy for replacing the constitution with one more suited to the current needs of the community as a matter of priority. I note it's not even on the agenda list at present, let alone the agenda. S.
