John Plocher wrote: > I don't mind them being in one place, but we should not lose the > intentional separation of the "do we really want to do this" and the > "how is it done" parts. > > > I can appreciate the intention of trying to separate process documents from policy documents. But it`s also important to reduce the number of documents and policies we have and point people to a single place to get basic info to get something done -- propose, approve, open, and deactivate collectives. I don`t see any reason why that can`t be in one document, but if not at least the implementation details are now documented for all collectives.
The life cycle doc Glynn wrote for the new constitution was nice because it was one process for all collectives and it was written in one page. Simple. I based the Collective Life Cycle Instructions on Glynn`s model. But since the new constitution was not approved, I had to point to the three separate policy documents -- the constitution for CGs, the project instantiation document for Projects, and the Advocacy CG for User Groups. So, although implementation details now live in one place for all collectives, which makes my life easier and simplifies things for the community, the policies that lead to the implementations are still spread out and different. That`s the part I`d like to see simplified next. Jim -- http://blogs.sun.com/jimgris/
