Valerie Bubb Fenwick wrote: > On Sun, 17 Jan 2010, Peter Tribble wrote: >> The project instantiation document is how the website team actually >> do things; we could have governance and implementation as >> two documents or merge them into one. > I would be in favor of a merge. I believe that would lead to greater > consistency
I can easily do this. I just need to know what the voting policy updates are. All of the implementation details were documented months ago to reflect the current situation and how the community operates naturally. All the OGB would need to do is write a short policy statement about what it wants to require about voting to get new infrastructure. Currently, each Collective on the site has a different sponsoring authority, and that`s where some of the confusion comes in: the OGB creates CGs, CGs create Ps, and Advocacy creates UGs. I outline all of that in the life cycles doc. The original intent of the life cycle doc in the last OGB was to unify the process for all groups, and pull that process document out of the constitution so it could be updated without having to do a constitutional vote each time. So, if you decide to do that and it passes I can update the life cycle doc easily enough. You need not specify the whole thing. You only have to decide voting policies. Jim
