[advocacy-discuss] [ogb-discuss] The OpenSolaris Constitution: (Really Rough) v2.0

[Jim Grisanzio]

Nicolas Dorfsman wrote:
> Le 15 oct. 08 à 20:35, James Carlson a écrit :
>
>   
>> Stephen Lau writes:
>>     
>>> Additionally, letting groups decide their own ways of running the  
>>> group
>>> makes for better scale rather than the OGB trying to set standard
>>> procedures to apply to both groups as large as ON, and groups as  
>>> small
>>> as our San Francisco OSUG.
>>>       
>> Where "running the group" means details such as who evaluates an RTI
>> and how that's done (for ON), I agree.  That can and should be
>> delegated and not specified by the OGB.
>>
>> When it comes to common standards, though, such as how votes (if any)
>> are held, or how the various OGB-defined roles are used, I think there
>> ought to be common practices across groups.  It's ok if that's not in
>> the constitution itself, and is instead in some OGB-sponsored "how to
>> do the group thing" document, but I don't think it ought to be
>> delegated entirely.
>>     

This discussion reminds me that Michelle is working on some excellent 
common practices documents in the website community for communities. 
That may be a good home for process-oriented material like this. Or we 
can just leave it in the Constitution as it is now.

> James is completly right.
>
> User groups have to be considered as important people in the new  
> constitution.
>   

We've been working for two years to make that a reality -- first by 
making OSUGs into projects as an interim step and now by redesigning the 
community governance and updating website infrastructure to make UGs 
equal to Communities and Projects in a non-hierarchal system. Users are 
just as important as coders. Totally agree.

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