Alan Burlison wrote:
This thread started to circle some time ago. Auth implements the Constitution, which in turn is meant to reflect and govern the way the community operates. The upstream issue is the Constitution, that needs addressing first. We won't be changing the way Auth models the Constitution if and until the Constitution changes.
It isn't an "either" / "or" situation. The Constitution doesn't mandate website design decisions. Nor, should a Constitution mandate website design decisions. It should be above operational details so it can easily adapt to new technologies and methods of doing things. I agree. The proposed constitution makes it much easier to implement a website and cleans up electorate issues by clearly separating them from other roles, and I will continue to support it every way I can. But, we can't wait for it to be ratified in a minimum of eight months. We need to make a few changes now. Otherwise the website design will be unnecessarily impacting us when it doesn't need to. What's the cost of adding two new constitutionally independent CG website access roles? How many people are going to be impacted by not adding them? That's what I think we should focus on. Cheers, Jim -- Jim Walker, http://blogs.sun.com/jwalker Sun Microsystems, Broomfield, Colorado _______________________________________________ website-discuss mailing list [email protected]
