On Tue, Aug 4, 2009 at 6:31 PM, Alan Burlison<Alan.Burlison at sun.com> wrote: > Jim Walker wrote: > >> However, the assertion that CGs MUST use constitutional roles >> to control website access is false. The OpenSolaris Constitution >> does not require this, and we haven't operated this way since >> the opensolaris.org website was created. > > This discussion has been dominated so far by website issues. I'd encourage > the participants to widen the scope to consider all the other services we > support - Auth is not just about website editing.
And yet, if we can't get one simple case sorted, what benefit is there to muddying the waters by dragging in other use cases? >> If we go forward with the new website roles as described in the >> transition-roles-collectives document above, we will be forced to >> perform a formal CG vote anytime we wish to grant someone website >> edit rights (Contributor) or admin rights (Core Contributor). >> Not only will this unreasonably delay granting website access >> rights by at least 72 hours[1], it is likely to cause people to >> be given Constitutional roles they don't merit or want. Which >> is the opposite of what we want in terms of ease-of-use and a >> well qualified electorate. > > No, only the creation of Core Contributors requires CG and OGB involvement. There isn't really any difference in the eyes of the Constitution as to the creation of Contributors or Core Contributors. The only case that's different is the initial set of Core Contributors for a new CG. Apart from that in both cases a CG decides who gets to be awarded the grant or designation. > Contributors can edit web pages in Hub, and they can be created in Auth by > the existing Core Contributors of a Community. I've explained that several > times already. That's incompatible with how the constitution has been interpreted to date. It's also not what I would expect of an access control system. If the Contributor role in auth is supposed to be the Contributor role defined by the constitution, then it cannot be revoked. Thus, in order to give someone edit rights, you have to give them a constitutional role; you have to give someone edit rights because they've contributed in some way whether you want to or not; you cannot later remove their edit rights without getting the OGB to hold an inquiry and basically kick them out of OpenSolaris. Locking the two together doesn't make sense. >> The Constitution DOES NOT require this mapping of website roles >> to constitutional roles. I recommend the CG website role terms >> be changed or new editor and admin roles be added to CGs so >> constitutional and website roles can remain independent like they >> are now. > > The Constitution defines the CC roles, Auth records them and the various > applications interpret those roles in terms of the rights they give to the > various roles. Again, I've explained that several times already. And we're saying that applications should not assign rights mapped to constitutional roles. >> The OGB can clarify this in policy if needed. The OGB can decide >> how constitutional roles are used or not used beyond what is in >> the constitution. > > Whilst the OGB can undoubtedly provide guidance on the interpretation of the > Constitution, major changes such as renaming or altering membership grades > and their associated roles in the Community requires constitutional change, > which is why the new Constitution was proposed last year. If the current > OGB want to make such changes, it would seem the easiest route is to make > whatever changes are deemed necessary to the proposed Constitution and > schedule a Community vote to approve it. We don't need or want a constitutional amendment (not for this anyway). Nowhere here are we attempting to rename or alter community roles. What we're attempting to ensure is that they're used in a manner that's compatible with the constitution. -- -Peter Tribble http://www.petertribble.co.uk/ - http://ptribble.blogspot.com/
