[ogb-discuss] Proposal: Promote the Website project to a Community

[Alan Burlison]

Keith M Wesolowski wrote:

>> This sounds exactly like what the constitution is pushing us to do - form
>> Communities to do the actual work.
> 
> s/Communities/Groups/ but yes.

The constitution talks about "Community Groups", but I can find no 
distinction being made between "Community" and "Group", in fact where 
"Community" or "Group" are used they seem to be shorthand for "Community 
Groups".  If there *is* a difference I'd like to know because it will 
have an impact on the Auth application, which when complete will be used 
to manage the various OpenSolaris collectives.

> It's not a "promotion", however, just a restructuring.  Projects and
> Groups represent different things; they are not inferior and superior
> representations of the same things.  If this restructuring is
> approved, we'll simply be acknowledging what your proposal stated at
> the beginning: a Group is a better fit than a Project.

According to the constitution "Community Groups are, in turn, 
responsible for initiating and managing projects to accomplish those 
activities" and Communities vote to initiate and terminate Projects. It 
seems therefore that there is a clear hierarchy in the constitution, and 
that is certainly reflected in the structure of the current webapp. 
Again, if that is incorrect I'd like to know because it will affect the 
infrastructure replacement.

>> If the Core Contribs of this Community wish to take on the role of OS.o
>> Editorial board, more power to them!
> 
> That would need to be reconciled with the fact that there is now an
> OGB Committee authorized to perform this function.  And I'm not
> convinced that the content and infrastructure are (or should be)
> inextricably linked or should be the responsibility of the same
> people.  That's like saying that typewriter manufacturers and writers
> should be one and the same because they're both involved in typing
> letters onto paper.

Has anyone been appointed to that committee yet?  And in any case I'm 
not sure that a Board Committee is the appropriate vehicle for managing 
website content.  3.1 of the Constitution says:

"The OGB, in turn, delegates the organization and decision-making for 
specific OpenSolaris activities ... through the creation of Community 
Groups"

in 7.1 it says:

"Community Groups [that] are initiated by the OGB for the purpose of 
focused management and accomplishment of a given set of activities. 
Community Groups are, in turn, responsible for initiating and managing 
projects to accomplish those activities."

and it also says in 6.12

"Board Committees ... shall have and may exercise all the power and 
authority of the OGB in the management of the business and affairs of 
the OpenSolaris Community within the limits imposed by the Charter",

i.e. they may not have more powers than the OGB itself possesses, they 
are representatives of the OGB formed to address particular areas over 
which the OGB has license.  It seems fairly well accepted that the OGB 
is the "legislature" and the Community Groups are the "executive". 
Therefore that the correct mechanism for managing website content is the 
relevant Community Group and any such Projects that it sees fit, not a 
Board Committee, which can only perform a subset of the actions that the 
OGB itself can perform.

And to address your other point, the reason I suggested having separate 
Projects for infrastructure and content was precisely so the two 
functions could be kept separate, with different people (if necessary) 
being on each Project.  And there clearly *is* linkage between form and 
function - one of the primary reasons for wanting to replace the current 
webapp is because it does not fit the needs of the OpenSolaris 
community.  Increasing the distance between the two sides of what is 
effectively the same coin beyond what was strictly necessary seemed as 
if it would be counter-productive.

-- 
Alan Burlison
--