[ogb-discuss] Community Facilitators

[Liane Praza]

James Carlson writes:
> Liane Praza writes:
> > I had been reading into this discussion that this state was not a
> > desirable one.  That communities who hadn't appointed a faciliator
> > were (minorly) delinquent.
> > 
> > If that reading was wrong and the "no appointed facilitator" state
> > is not just OK, but explicitly endorsed as a community operational
> > model by the OGB, then cool.  My apologies for the misunderstanding.
> 
> It works.  The community leaders don't seem to be reading the
> documentation for how the process is supposed to work, and the OGB
> hasn't been on much of a campaign to push their noses in it, so that's
> how it is.

I'm not entirely certain, but I think this means: "A community is
supposed nominate *a single person* as facilitator to the OGB.
If a community continues operating under the current default
that all core contributors can act as the facilitator, the core
contributors either didn't read the documentation for how the process
is supposed to work or simply aren't bothering to properly participate
in governance."

Close enough?  I'm not trying to be snarky.  I'm just trying to
be clear that I understand.

(I was attempting to suggest sedimenting the current default as
acceptable.  Saying that you believe this is either constitutionally
not possible, or simply not preferred would have been OK with me.
I believe I have actually read the documentation and think it might
be allowable, though potentially a little weird with the letter of
the constitution.)

liane