Peter Tribble wrote: > On Tue, Jan 12, 2010 at 8:13 PM, Valerie Bubb Fenwick > <Valerie.Fenwick at sun.com> wrote: >> Hi gang - >> >> here is my feedback on the Group Lifecycle Administrative Proceedures >> document. >> >> I am a bit confused, as this document seems to cover project lifecycle, >> but then we also have a project instantiation document (or was that >> project instantiation doc the one that was for the old constitution? >> if so, it may help to remove it from the list) > > 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. > > The infrastructure lifecycle doc only covers the actual creation of > the group post-approval. So I think that what we're looking at here > is a description of the steps to be taken to approve the creation > of a group (of any sort) and change its status. It's the *approval* > steps that are at issue - there's a governance step at the beginning > that results in the decision to create/change/terminate a group. > Once that's concluded, a message is sent to the infrastructure > team to implement the decision - at which point JimG's project > instantiation document kicks in. > >> I also don't like how email notifications about new group >> creations/project creations have been removed. Notifications >> serve two puporses: find new people interested in the new thing, >> self select for overlap. (that is, Goal #5 doesn't seem to >> be met in the process, so it may just be an oversite in the document?) > > It's not consistent, for sure. I'm not sure that I would actually > want this in the process, though - isn't the promulgation of the > creation of the group something the leader of that group should > do once they've got going? > >> Step #4 in creation process seems like it could be a black hole. A simple: >> "Wait" seems like something that may never happen, unlike our current >> process where ogb-discuss is notified when something like this is ready >> and the project creation alias. > > I don't think the wait is an important part of the process, but it > probably is accurate. Removing that one-word sentence wouldn't > change anything. > >> The creation process (step #3) is in conflict with the Group Management >> document that requires 3 votes for the creation, and here just >> requires one (besides yourself). >> >> These two policies overlap in their nature and need to be consistent. > > This was the new lightweight group creation process, presuming that > the old constitution was going away. (The Group Management doc > looks like one section of the old constitution.) > > There are some fundamental questions here: > > 1. Is bugzilla an integral part of the process?
I think its the best thing we've got currently, as we get better tools, we can change this document. > > 2. Do we want to keep the heavyweight "3 core contributors most > vote" or go for a more streamlined "just do it" approach? I've added content to the group management document to indicate what I stated in our last meeting (that the content is provided as a historical record of voting practices used successfully by CGs and that we encourage collective to devise some decision-making mechanism that suits them and to document it separately on their web pages. I'm very > much in favour of the "just do it" approach myself, and I think the > requirement for an independent vote in bugzilla is reasonable - it > would seem sane to only support groups which at least one other > person thinks are worthwhile. Maybe even make is so that the > supporting vote has to come from a Member, so that we trust them > from a governance perspective. I don't think requiring a Member to agree is light-weight, if a project fails or flails, it goes into the garbage-collection cycle. > > (I think, sorry, know for sure that the current 3-vote step just isn't > working - it's simply preventing good projects from getting approved.) agreed. > > 3. This document makes no reference to relationships between > groups. In particular, it doesn't have Projects having to be > sponsored by Community Groups. Are we OK with that? Yes, if the new constitution passes, we lose the hierarchy between the groups and the world becomes flat. Thanks, Michelle >
