Alan Burlison wrote: > Michelle Olson wrote: > >>> Other than that, a 40% increase in the size of the constitution >>> seems a little disproportionate. >> >> It isn't when you have multiple reviewers asking for the common >> voting content to be included, IMO. > > I don't think this level of detail needs to be in the constitution, > Clearly the voting procedures for community-wide ballots such as the > OGB elections needs to be in there, but voting procedures for groups > would be better expressed as a separate document - it would be much > simpler if these went into an OGB-approved recommendation document for > how groups should run ballots. We already have precedent for this in > the proposed OGB Group Lifecycle Administrative Procedures [1], the > OGB Group Management Guidelines [2] and the OGB Electorate Membership > Process [3] documents.
I agree. We had this discussion months ago and agreed on list and in OGB meetings to break out the process documents into their own documents instead of putting everything into one document. If there is a desire for more -- or less -- process for group management then those procedures should be drafted at the links below (which are linked from the proposed constitution). We wanted to make it all this more modular so everything would be easier to understand and work on. When we vote on the constitution, we are voting on the concepts in the main document. The process documents are implementation details that should be easily updated in real time as we learn from experience adding groups, creating members, managing groups, whatever. Jim > [1]http://wiki.genunix.org/wiki/index.php/OGB_Group_Lifecycle_Administrative_Procedures > > > [2]http://wiki.genunix.org/wiki/index.php/OGB_Group_Management_Guidelines > [3]http://wiki.genunix.org/wiki/index.php/OGB_Electorate_Membership_Process > >
