On 07/19/09 01:08 PM, Peter Tribble wrote:
On Sat, Jul 18, 2009 at 11:51 PM, Alan Burlison<[email protected]> wrote:
John Plocher wrote:
The existing website app ties webpage editing rights to a "leader"
roll that is in no way connected to either the Core Contributor
governance role or the Contributor constitutional one. Please don't
try to rewrite history...
That misfeature that has long been the source of complaint, that the current
portal does not reflect the Constitution. That is one of the things we are
rectifying.
The problem is that there's a "Leaders" link that is broken; it ought to
say "Editors" (an accurate description) or be recast to return the Core
Contributor list.
Until
such a change is approved by the Community, we have no mandate to change
anything. And with all due respect, the OGB doesn't have the power to
unilaterally make that change either, it needs ratifying by the Community
as
a whole.
Yet you/your team seem comfortable taking the mandate to unilaterally
invent and decide things for UG's and P's without said constitutional
or community backing. You can't have it both ways...
That is incorrect. We worked closely with the OGB, basing the initial Auth
implementation on the new Constitution that was presented for ratification
the Community by last year's OGB. When it was not ratified, as has already
been explained, we took the CG parts of the old constitution and the P & UG
parts of the unratified Constitution as the basis for the reimplementation.
In addition, we communicated all of this repeatedly to the OGB, and the
wider Community. A list of just some of the discussions can be found at
http://www.opensolaris.org/os/community/web/#announcements
And yet we're still having the discussion, and I at least am still unclear as
to what's happening.
The Auth component is just the first step of addressing the problems we have
with the current infrastructure. As I have said, we have communicated our
plans and progress to both bthe OGB and the wider Community all the way
through the process, and now with two weeks to deployment the project is
dev-complete and is in the final testing and deployment stages. We will not
be making any further changes to the application at this point.
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."
Just to clarify:
I sent email to ogb-private on 4/22 with an update about how we were
going to move forward after the new constitution did not pass. The
quote in the 4/23 OGB meeting minutes is not a quote from my email. It
apparently is a paraphrase by someone in the meeting that was
incorrectly recorded in the minutes as a quote from me.
In that email I also offered to attend an OGB meeting to discuss, but no
one asked me to do that.
Bonnie
Rereading this indicates that it's unclear what this means, and we should have
asked for clarification at the time. Did it mean that there was no time for
re-implementation, and the then-current implementation would we rolled out as
was; or did it mean that the auth app was going to be re-implemented according
to the old constitution? I certainly paid more attention to the "no
re-implementation"
part, and inferred from that that what we currently had implemented was going
to be the version that was rolled out.
(I also do not recall the question of what to do being asked. If you believe
that the design of the webapp is intimately determined by the constitution,
why not ask the OGB for guidance?)
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.
Then the third piece of information, the transition document, on June 12th. It's
taken a little while to realize that in fact, we may have a problem.
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.
_______________________________________________
website-discuss mailing list
[email protected]
