On Sun, Jul 19, 2009 at 9:37 PM, Alan Burlison<[email protected]> wrote: > Peter Tribble wrote: > >> We have had 3 conflicting pieces of information given to us regarding the >> rollout of the auth app. >> >> The first is that, when the current OGB took office we were told by Bonnie >> that: >> >> "We had to decide to go with old constitution on website implementation, >> there >> will be no time for re-implementation before the end of the current term." > > I don't think I was party to that conversation, but I suspect the point that > Bonnie was making is that once we deploy around the old Constitution we > won't be proposing to change things until after the next election, even if > the new Constitution is ratified between now and then - but as I say, I'm > not sure of the exact context of the statement you are attributing to > Bonnie.
That statement is essentially all I have to go on, and I had to go back through the OGB minutes to get it. Clearly I at least misinterpreted it. > And that is exactly what has happened - for the area where the old > Constitution gate us sufficient information we have followed it, namely the > CGs. The PS and UGs were based on the new Constitution. That's been stated > several times already in this thread. But the old constitution (and the new one, come to that) tells you what structures must exist and how to organize voting. It tells you nothing about how to run a website. >> The second piece of information the OGB and the wider community have had >> to go on is the version of the auth app and the website made available to >> us for >> evaluation and testing. Now you're telling us that the version to be >> rolled out >> is (a) going to be different, and (b) is not available to us for >> evaluation. > > It will be available, hopefully within a week, depending on how testing > goes. So that's maybe a week of testing just as everyone goes on summer vacation? Sigh. Oh well, have to do the best we can I guess. > The changes between the current and the new version are relatively > minor, mainly renaming of roles to reflect the old Constitution. The > details of the new version are in the migration documents. Just minor changes like renaming, or reassignment of rights as well, as detailed in the documentation? >> Yet, I am still unable to work out from the information provided whether >> we >> have a problem or not. I am still waiting for an answer to the questions I >> asked >> earlier: >> >> 1. Will the new system store Core Contributor grants? >> 2. Will the new system use Core Contributor grants for access control? >> 3. Will the new system store Contributor grants? >> 4. Will the new system use Contributor grants for access control? >> >> because I am still unable to determine the answers to all these questions >> from >> the documentation available and the discussion on this thread. > > As CC and C data is in the current system and we are migrating that data to > the new system then clearly the data will be in the new system. And as we > aren't changing the way the data is interpreted then, as in the current > system, that data will be used for access control. That's be stated > already, and is also described in the documentation. It's been implied, certainly, but the documentation is unclear (see below). And we must be changing something because the grants database *isn't* currently used for access control. > If you could explain where the documentation is unclear we'll see what we > can do to clarify it. Let's start with the 1st sentence of the transition roles document. "The new website infrastructure will support governance and website roles." This clearly needs clarifying, because we're being told that there are no website roles - at least for community groups. (And in the case of Projects and User Groups it looks like a governance model without the constitutional backing that we should have had.) Looking at the data migration document, there are at least two obvious problems: 1. It talks about electorate collectives as separate entities. That seems to imply that the new auth app will be structured according to the new constitution. It's also inconsistent with the transition roles document. 2. Contributors in the new auth app will be seeded both from poll and website leaders. If that is the case then the Contributor role in the new auth app is a website role, not a constitutional role. (It can't be a constitutional role because the constitution requires a specific grant process.) And, as a result, the new auth app fails to model the constitutional Contributor role. -- -Peter Tribble http://www.petertribble.co.uk/ - http://ptribble.blogspot.com/ _______________________________________________ website-discuss mailing list [email protected]
