Simon Phipps wrote:
> I am saying that at present there are many elements in the web site -
> news & blog feeds, graphics, style sheets, just for example - and
> that as far as I can see the new, OGB-created structure of Website CG
> and review committee has no place in which they can be created or
> managed by people with content expertise. Similarly, although there
> is a committee to review the work of editors, there is no place for
> editors to do their work of arranging and adjusting content for the
> greatest value.
>
> Hence I assert that there no community group to manage this content
> and contribution. Hence I assert it is non-CG originated. I assume
> the OGB is implying that all this stuff is of no consequence, or so
> easy any community member can be expected to create it from nothing
> without recognition. I suggest that view is incorrect, and there is a
> great big hole in your plans. When you hacked Alan B's proposal, you
> left a part on the floor.
You're right - had someone suggested that instead of dropping the entire
Content project paragraph, we only drop the sentence about it replacing the
existing OGB committee, that probably would have passed as well.
Fortunately, fixing it is so trivial, there's nothing for the OGB to do.
The Website Community Group can simply follow the normal process to create
a project that does this design work. The OGB committee might then grant
them the rights to make most changes without pre-review, as I've suggested
we should for various parts of the site so far.
That any projects were listed in the Website Community proposal is a bit
strange - the OGB creates community groups, the community groups create
their projects - we could just have easily deleted the entire section
listing proposed projects as unnecessary.
--
-Alan Coopersmith- alan.coopersmith at sun.com
Sun Microsystems, Inc. - X Window System Engineering
