[ogb-discuss] project instantiation rewrite

[Jim Grisanzio]

John Plocher wrote:
> I don't mind them being in one place, but we should not lose the
> intentional separation of the "do we really want to do this" and the
> "how is it done" parts.
>
>
>   
I can appreciate the intention of trying to separate process documents 
from policy documents. But it`s also important to reduce the number of 
documents and policies we have and point people to a single place to get 
basic info to get something done -- propose, approve, open, and 
deactivate collectives. I don`t see any reason why that can`t be in one 
document, but if not at least the implementation details are now 
documented for all collectives.

The life cycle doc Glynn wrote for the new constitution was nice because 
it was one process for all collectives and it was written in one page. 
Simple. I based the Collective Life Cycle Instructions on Glynn`s model. 
But since the new constitution was not approved, I had to point to the 
three separate policy documents -- the constitution for CGs, the project 
instantiation document for Projects, and the Advocacy CG for User 
Groups. So, although implementation details now live in one place for 
all collectives, which makes my life easier and simplifies things for 
the community, the policies that lead to the implementations are still 
spread out and different. That`s the part I`d like to see simplified next.

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