On 10/15/08 6:19 AM, James Carlson wrote: > Jim Grisanzio writes: > >> Article 8. Community Group Voting Procedures: Removed. The OGB may very >> well decide to publish some suggested ways to run a group (voting, >> management, etc), but it's not the role of the OGB to get down to this >> level of detail for each group. >> > > If groups can define their own arbitrary procedures (e.g., "Bob makes > all the decisions; the rest of you are peons"), then that seems to > mean that there are no standards. How can the OGB effectively mediate > any disputes that might arise? > > I mostly agree with the idea of avoiding excessive detail here, and > that details can (and should) go in other day-to-day documents, but I > *do* think it's the role of the OGB to set out standard operating > practices for the groups to follow. It shouldn't be an administrative > free-for-all. > I think minimum operating practices would be good, but I want to avoid making certain assumptions about how a group should operate. A user group != documentation community != ON, and should set its own procedures accordingly.
Additionally, letting groups decide their own ways of running the group makes for better scale rather than the OGB trying to set standard procedures to apply to both groups as large as ON, and groups as small as our San Francisco OSUG. (I'm fairly certain SFOSUG has a minimum operating procedure that every member must have at least two beers (except Danek) per meeting - and I'm not so sure that applies to ON :-P) >> 3. Leaders: Those responsible for leading a Community, Project, or >> User Group. Leaders may decide the technical direction of a given >> Project, for example. Leaders may also appoint Participants to be >> Contributors and Leaders. >> > > Do all groups have to have leaders? Perhaps "Projects" do, but it > seems a less obviously necessary distinction for "Communities" and > "User Groups." > Good point. cheers, steve -- stephen lau | stevel at opensolaris.org | www.whacked.net
