On Thu, Sep 17, 2009 at 7:25 PM, Jim Grisanzio <Jim.Grisanzio at sun.com> wrote: > I also said earlier > in the thread we`d consider an RFE involving the OGB secretary to make > changes in the auth system.
That's not something that should be left to an RFE. That's the starting position. Current practice and the constitution say that it's the secretary's responsibility; therefore the initial state should be that the OGB secretary (and any extras they care to designate) have edit and admin rights to all electorate collectives; then they're able to do whatever delegation is appropriate. > But I thought the OGB members wanted reporting? We can provide that. Plus, > all of the recorded grants are public, anyway. Reporting is essential, whatever the scheme. >> Yes, we all want to delegate the majority of the work to the >> collectives and their facilitators, > > I see others on the OGB suggesting otherwise. This is confusing. We will not > be able to build anything unless the OGB speaks with one voice. I haven't seen any objections to delegated responsibility; the problem is that you're forcing responsibility onto facilitators and cutting the OGB, the secretary, and the constitutional requirements they have to work under out of the loop. We should be able to delegate tasks, but shouldn't be forced to. Looking further forward, we may simply delegate to a membership committee and let them sort it out. -- -Peter Tribble http://www.petertribble.co.uk/ - http://ptribble.blogspot.com/
