Nicolas Dorfsman wrote: > Le 15 oct. 08 ? 20:35, James Carlson a ?crit : > > >> Stephen Lau writes: >> >>> 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. >>> >> Where "running the group" means details such as who evaluates an RTI >> and how that's done (for ON), I agree. That can and should be >> delegated and not specified by the OGB. >> >> When it comes to common standards, though, such as how votes (if any) >> are held, or how the various OGB-defined roles are used, I think there >> ought to be common practices across groups. It's ok if that's not in >> the constitution itself, and is instead in some OGB-sponsored "how to >> do the group thing" document, but I don't think it ought to be >> delegated entirely. >>
This discussion reminds me that Michelle is working on some excellent common practices documents in the website community for communities. That may be a good home for process-oriented material like this. Or we can just leave it in the Constitution as it is now. > James is completly right. > > User groups have to be considered as important people in the new > constitution. > We've been working for two years to make that a reality -- first by making OSUGs into projects as an interim step and now by redesigning the community governance and updating website infrastructure to make UGs equal to Communities and Projects in a non-hierarchal system. Users are just as important as coders. Totally agree. Jim -- http://blogs.sun.com/jimgris/
