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

[Jim Grisanzio]

Peter Tribble wrote:
> 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).
>   

Yah, and the relationship can certainly continue, but I'd prefer that it 
be voluntary and not mandatory. For instance, my personal interest is in 
UG issues but not in Advocacy issues.


>> 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.
>   


Well, I guess what I was getting at (not too clearly) is that if we 
don't have a re-org and if we don't address the membership issue but we 
/do/ make the OSUGs a new collective then we'll have to consider how to 
handle grants because at that point the OSUGs will not be part of 
Advocacy. But you are right, I think any OGB re-org will address 
membership.


>> 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.
>   

This is an interesting point. As it is now, the vast majority of OSUG 
participants are not involved in the Advocacy GC or on advocacy-discuss. 
So, the only "control" point really comes in when Advocacy has to vote 
on OSUG grants. I just don't think that part of the merger worked at all 
and I want to fix that by making the OSUGs their own group.

> 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.
>   

Agree.


Jim

-- 
http://blogs.sun.com/jimgris/

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.opensolaris.org/pipermail/advocacy-discuss/attachments/20080618/fa39ff97/attachment.html>