On Sat, Jul 12, 2008 at 1:13 AM, Simon Phipps <webmink at sun.com> wrote:
> (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
So you have to define the set of top-level groups. And you again tangle the
community structure up by conflating functional and constitutional roles.
> * 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
So a member whose contributions are part of a disfunctional or disinterested
Group is disenfranchised?
> * 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.
It doesn't. Groups write code, engage users, advocate, produce
distros. Whatever.
Their business isn't managing the electoral roll.
--
-Peter Tribble
http://www.petertribble.co.uk/ - http://ptribble.blogspot.com/
