Jim Walker wrote:
However, the assertion that CGs MUST use constitutional roles to control website access is false. The OpenSolaris Constitution does not require this, and we haven't operated this way since the opensolaris.org website was created.
This discussion has been dominated so far by website issues. I'd encourage the participants to widen the scope to consider all the other services we support - Auth is not just about website editing.
If we go forward with the new website roles as described in the transition-roles-collectives document above, we will be forced to perform a formal CG vote anytime we wish to grant someone website edit rights (Contributor) or admin rights (Core Contributor). Not only will this unreasonably delay granting website access rights by at least 72 hours[1], it is likely to cause people to be given Constitutional roles they don't merit or want. Which is the opposite of what we want in terms of ease-of-use and a well qualified electorate.
No, only the creation of Core Contributors requires CG and OGB involvement. Contributors can edit web pages in Hub, and they can be created in Auth by the existing Core Contributors of a Community. I've explained that several times already.
The Constitution DOES NOT require this mapping of website roles to constitutional roles. I recommend the CG website role terms be changed or new editor and admin roles be added to CGs so constitutional and website roles can remain independent like they are now.
The Constitution defines the CC roles, Auth records them and the various applications interpret those roles in terms of the rights they give to the various roles. Again, I've explained that several times already.
The OGB can clarify this in policy if needed. The OGB can decide how constitutional roles are used or not used beyond what is in the constitution.
Whilst the OGB can undoubtedly provide guidance on the interpretation of the Constitution, major changes such as renaming or altering membership grades and their associated roles in the Community requires constitutional change, which is why the new Constitution was proposed last year. If the current OGB want to make such changes, it would seem the easiest route is to make whatever changes are deemed necessary to the proposed Constitution and schedule a Community vote to approve it.
-- Alan Burlison -- _______________________________________________ website-discuss mailing list [email protected]
