[advocacy-discuss] OSUG Discussion: OGB Reorg and New Webapp Issues

[Peter Tribble]

On Tue, Jun 17, 2008 at 5:02 AM, Jim Grisanzio <Jim.Grisanzio at sun.com> wrote:
> hey ...
>
> As the OGB discusses a possible reorganization and community simplification,
> I wanted to bring up the OSUG issue so we can go back to the OGB with our
> input. The time for this discussion is now, so I wanted to make sure
> everyone had an opportunity to participate.
...
> We have some obvious options:
>
> Do nothing. Leave the OSUGs as sponsored projects inside Advocacy. The new
> webapp will allow horizontal relationships between collectives as well as
> hierarchical relationships. So, we can just leave things alone and see what
> the OGB comes up with -- whether the new system is horizontal or
> hierarchical or just a cleaned up version of what we have now.

I dislike the status quo. I don't have a problem with the relationship to
advocacy (although as you say the revised structure will allow more flexible
realtionships).

> Move the OSUGs to opensolaris.com, which is supposed to be evolve into the
> central user site for the community. The big issue here would be that moving
> OSUGs to another site would remove them from the OpenSolaris governance
> system, and we don't know how OSUG members would feel about that.

Very much against. While it shares the same name, causing much confusion,
it doesn't share much else - in particular it's got nothing at all to
do with the
community I'm part of.

> Choose to assert that OSUGs should be their own collective along with
> Community Groups and Projects when the new webapp is implemented.

Yup. User Groups should be User Groups, and assert their distinctive
role in the community.

> The new
> webapp will allow this functionality. Also, this option would keep the OSUGs
> within the OpenSolaris governance system, thus preserving all the
> Contributor and Core Contributor grants. How we grant Contributor and Core
> Contributor status would have to be considered, but that issue is also being
> discussed as part of a potential OGB reorg.

I think the point of the membership revamp is that we don't get involved
in granting status at all.

> My view: I propose we ask the OGB to let the OSUGs become a new collective
> -- User Groups -- on the site when that functionality becomes available
> whether the reorg is specified or not. This would not get in the way of a
> potential reorg. In fact, it could be part of a multi-step reorg, but more
> importantly, it could enable the OSUGs to have the same status as Community
> Groups and Projects if the reorg is delayed, or we decide a reorg is not
> needed, or if the reorg is relatively minor with no structural or
> relationship changes. My goal is to move the OSUGs out from under the
> Advocacy CG while still maintaining governance status for the 4,000 or so
> people in the user groups right now.
>
> Agree? Disagree? Any other options we should consider?

I think we need them to be a new Collective, as User Groups. That's for sure.

I'm less sure of the need to disconnect them from Advocacy; in the new scheme
as I envisage it it isn't the strict hierarchy of control but becomes
a more fluid
and benevolent relationship.

And I regard the governance issue as unrelated - that's one key thing I've been
pushing for, to disconnect community governance from the day to day working
structures. So people get governance rights as valued contributors, irrespective
of what parts of the structure they happen to be in.


-- 
-Peter Tribble
http://www.petertribble.co.uk/ - http://ptribble.blogspot.com/