Jim Walker wrote:
Michelle Olson wrote:
Thanks Michelle.
In preparation for a meeting, I would like to see what we agree on.
It appears there is general consensus from the OGB and members of the
opensolaris.org website team that Constitutional roles should not be
used to define website rights.
Is this true?
No, there is no such consensus. The website community core contributors
stand behind the roles as stated in the migration documentation.
What we agree on is that we need to move to the new infrastructure
because the existing site is being decommissioned and we need to help
the community make the move and learn the new applications.
If true, what steps can we take to make this a reality?
What are the hurdles we must clear?
The hurdles we need to clear are to learn how to use the new system and
communicate it to our community groups, projects, and user groups. We
also must promote the benefits of the draft constitution, so that the
electorate will approve it when it is on the next ballot. The website
team has already agreed to retrofit the data next Spring if we manage to
ratify a new Constitution.
We can do it in phases if needed.
No, we need to read the information, digest it, and learn to use the new
system and how to teach others to use it. All the design information has
been on the web community for years here (we started auth in June of 2007):
http://opensolaris.org/os/community/web/
See the section on Website Transition please.
Also, if there are Constitutional issues, which I don't see yet (see
below).
Then, I don't see why the OGB can't put forth a specific Constitutional
interruption policy that allows progress until a new Constitution is
approved.
Also, I added some comments to the bugs.
This first one is filed against the auth webapp for an exception list
related
to the concern about Contributor status being for life.
http://defect.opensolaris.org/bz/show_bug.cgi?id=10063
I added this to the bug:
----
Constitutional roles should not be used to define website rights. Period.
A new term like "Editor" should be used to establish website editing
rights.
I saw this comment and I have no idea what it has to do with the content
of the bug. This is more complicated than your tone implies, so I'd like
you to strike the 'Period.' from the description for the benefit of
everyone who has worked hard on this for many years (you have only just
now joined this conversation ongoing for 18+ months).
----
This second bug is an OGB bug (that could very well be a duplicate,
but I'm
not sure) against the Constitution for a separate, new role called
Member
that includes only the voting right. I believe I've correctly stated
in the
bug description that the auth app already has the data structures in
place
(via the electorate collective) and we just need to get the member role
defined and approved in the new Constitution. Jim Gris, let me know
if I've
mis-characterized things in the description of this bug.
http://defect.opensolaris.org/bz/show_bug.cgi?id=10062
I added this to the bug:
----
Section 3.1 of the OpenSolaris Constitution (see below) clearly
defines the
Member role and its equivalence to the Core Contributor role relative
to voting.
So, I think this bug can be closed since the Member role is already
available
for use.
---
3.1. Structure. The OpenSolaris Community is structured as an
organization of
volunteer participants in which Members are given the right to vote on
Community-wide decisions, the most significant of which is to elect an
OpenSolaris Governing Board (OGB) to be responsible for overall
day-to-day
operations and representation of the organization to third parties.
The OGB, in
turn, delegates the organization and decision-making for specific
OpenSolaris
activities, such as product development and marketing tasks, through the
creation of Community Groups. Each Community Group consists of
participants and
contributors, a subset of whom become long-term Core Contributors and
are given
the responsibility for governance within the Community Group. Finally,
the set
of all individuals that have been named by one or more Community
Groups as Core
Contributors are the Members who are given the right to vote on
Community-wide
decisions.
----
Right, rather than close this bug as you suggest (I knew it was
imperfectly written), I'd like to develop it into the real bug that we
have, if possible. The community didn't approve the new Constitution, so
we don't have separation between CC and Member and that is a critical
part of what we need to separate governance (voting in annual elections)
from operations (voting in your community to grant other rights, like
juicing source or whatever, which always leads to granting access to
resources).
thanks,
Michelle
_______________________________________________
website-discuss mailing list
[email protected]
