On Wed, Jul 15, 2009 at 11:57 PM, Michelle Olson<[email protected]> wrote: > Jim Walker 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 are we agreeing and disagreeing on? I have no problem whatsoever with the roles as stated in the migration documentation. I don't see any problem with moving to a new website based on those roles. The problem comes if you believe that the roles in the migration documentation have anything to do with the constitution. It's unfortunate that they use the same names, which just causes confusion, especially as one could infer that the two roles match. There's no problem with Projects and User Groups. The roles seem reasonable and match to appropriate functionality. The problem comes with Community Groups: Core Contributor is a governance role, not a website role. You absolutely have to manage website editing rights independently of community wide voting rights. Do I really have to give someone a vote in the annual elections just so they can delete a web page? Now, the currently deployed auth app separates electoral roles from website roles, whereas the transition documentation implies that they aren't split. Which should I believe? Contributor is a specific designation defined in the constitution, basically a title we bestow upon those who have added value to our community. (And something we ought to do more often.) Again, nothing to do with website editing rights. There's another problem with using the constitutional roles, which is that of time. You want the website roles to evolve in real time as the members of the community come and go. The constitution says that you can't do that - CCs have a fixed term of 2 years, Contributors are for life. Within a community you need the same hierarchy of roles as the other collectives; basically Leader, Editor, Participant. Those roles - regardless of what they're called - are needed in all collectives for the website to be operational. They just don't map to the constitutional roles, and they don't have to. > 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. Yes, we do, and I don't see any obstacles to doing so, apart from the unnecessary conflation of constitutional and website roles. Declare them separate and we're good to go. -- -Peter Tribble http://www.petertribble.co.uk/ - http://ptribble.blogspot.com/ _______________________________________________ website-discuss mailing list [email protected]
