(Still working backwards)
On Jul 8, 2008, at 23:47, Peter Tribble wrote:
> Instead of a single membership committee, you're saying that every
> group
> should have its own membership management infrastructure. That's a
> huge
> waste of effort that most groups simply don't want to have to get
> involved
> with, and it gets us back to the mess we have at the moment where
> nothing
> gets done because every change has constitutional impact.
That's certainly not what I am proposing. I proposed:
* A single Board Membership Committee
* Its members are one or two OGB members plus the Liaison from each
top-level Group
* It devises a set of criteria for what one must be to gain a plenary
vote ("be a Member")
* It writes a sample policy for Membership
* Each Group can then either adopt that policy and their rep on the
membership committee can assign member status as needed to people in
the Group. They can also empower groups they host for governance
purposes to do the same (and send a rep to the Membership Committee or
share theirs)
* Or they can modify the policy to meet their needs and ask the
Membership Committee to endorse it, if they have non-standard needs
* If any Group fails to follow an approved policy they lose their
ability to make members
* The Membership committee makes quality checks from time to time
> To move forward we must separate central governance from local
> governance,
> so that communities can just get on with what they need to do
> without getting
> all tangled up in constitutional red tape.
100% agree. I think my proposal does that.
S.
_____
Simon Phipps, Chief Open Source Officer, Sun Microsystems
Tel: +1 650 352 6327/USx69758 Web: www.webmink.net, AIM: webmink
Current timezone: UTC+10 (Australia)
