Peter Tribble wrote: > 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.
Which is exactly the point I've made in the past - the Constitution doesn't fit the way the community works, the fix is to modify the constitution. This thread started to circle some time ago. Auth implements the Constitution, which in turn is meant to reflect and govern the way the community operates. The upstream issue is the Constitution, that needs addressing first. We won't be changing the way Auth models the Constitution if and until the Constitution changes. -- Alan Burlison --
