On Nov 27, 2007, at 4:49 AM, James Carlson wrote: > Stephen Lau writes: >> To be fair, it's not arbitrary people doing arbitrary things whenever >> they want. The Indiana homepage fiasco aside, I think the process >> driving all the other web content updates (roadmap, no_source, and >> download pages come to mind) have been frequent, responsible, and >> accurate. > > In that case, the reviews involved -- whether by a committee process > or a peer review process[1] -- should be easy and trivial. Recording > changes shouldn't cost much in the cases where mistakes aren't being > made. > >> Off-topic thought... one thing that is really pointing out is the >> need >> for these sorts of things to be under a proper CMS with an >> accounting/audit trail. > > That'd certainly help a bit, but I think avoiding wikiality fiascos is > an important concern. This last one was painful enough that I'd hope > we're at least a little gun-shy. > > [1] or some other process that this new group can presumably determine > on its own and that we needn't really debate here.
A far more sensible solution would be to create a project within the advocacy group that is responsible for the homepage content, and then join that project (become a part of that community and its decision-making process). If the project adheres to the rules for making decisions that were implanted in the constitution, then the result is a collaborative development of website content with more than adequate peer review. The solution chosen by the OGB was to create a special committee for the purpose of externally imposing decisions on someone else's work, rather than participating in the work itself. This anti-pattern is no different than the OGB creating a special committee to oversee the code commits on ZFS (because they might commit something harmful to OpenSolaris), another committee to oversee the commits on DTrace, etc. The OGB was not elected to be the ?ber-core of OpenSolaris. Your job is to ensure that the communities do their work according to the principles embodied in the constitution and thereby become self-regulating, including the communities that you choose (as ex-officio individuals) to participate within. The OpenSolaris Org cannot scale if the OGB does separate peer review of the work products. ....Roy
