On Wed, Aug 26, 2009 at 10:10 AM, Alan Burlison<Alan.Burlison at sun.com> wrote:
> There are 12 roles at present, and after the updates there will be 13. I...
>?The full list after the update will be:
> Collective Type ?Relationship ? ? ?Self Assign ?Manager
> ...
Thank you for the complete list, it satisfies my request for the info.
Nevertheless, I believe we are starting to spiral down out of
control, with the website team focused on deploying something soon,
the OGB focused on unscrambling the governance mess, and nobody
looking at the big picture and working out how this will all play
together to meet the community's needs.
Recall the basic problem:
How do people /do/ things in the community (like working towards
becoming a Contributor) without already being a Contributor? They
work on stuff, and maybe sometimes contribute something significant.
If all the gates for actually contributing anything (via Auth) require
one to /already/ have Contributor status, we are deadlocked - you can
only contribute if you are already a Contributor. The original
proposed solution - to proactively and irrevocably make people
Contributors /before/ they actually contributed anything - diluted the
Contributor role's authority, as did the tie-in to CoreContrib just to
enable webadmin rights. This is why many of us objected to the 1:1
tight coupling of constitutional roles to application "rights".
So, we seem to have applied our "hammer" to fix the problem: we
completely disconnected the community roles (Affiliate and Leader)
from the constitutional Contributor role - and the pendulum swings way
over on the other side. Now it is impossible to determine who has
actually contributed anything because the site infrastructure doesn't
help us track the connection between person and contribution. This
eliminates the dilution problem, but replaces it with one just as bad:
How do we determine if someone has earned the right to be a
Contributor, and thus be elected to CC/Member-of-Electorate status,
since there is no longer a connection between being a collective's
Leader or Affiliate and the constitutional metric of having made a
significant contribution?
Given the limited architecture supported by Auth, and looking
forward to the new constitution, I suggest the following roles be
supported in Auth:
Collective Type Relationship
---------------------------------------
Administrators Administrator - whatever - seems to be a SMI-only
internal role...
Electorate
Member - currently, anyone who is a CC anywhere,
proposed "self assigned" open to anyone
who is Contributor or above in any
collective
Governor - reflects yearly OGB elections
Community Group
Participant - read-only rights
Affiliate - Mid level "write" rights, but not yet
a contributor
Contributor - As above, maybe more, but recognition of
significant contribution(s), irrevocable
Leader - High level "write" and "admin" rights
Facilitator - As above, but liaison responsibilities as well
Project
Participant - ditto
Developer
Contributor
Leader
Facilitator
User Group
Participant - ditto
Affiliate
Contributor
Leader
Facilitator
> In addition there are the following relationships between collective types,
> these will not be changing:
>
>
> From Collective Type ?Relationship ? ? ? ?To Collective Type Cardinality
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Electorate ? ? ? ? ? ?represents ? ? ? ? ?Community Group ? ?1:1
Shouldn't this be a 1:N relationship? There is only one electorate,
even if you are in multiple collectives.
> So it is permissible for someone to be a Leader in a Community Group without
> being a Core Contributor in the associated Electorate, and conversely it is
There isn't an "associated Electorate" - there is only one across the
whole community. In the current constitution, you are in the
Electorate if you are a CoreContrib anywhere; in the proposed one, you
are eligible to be a Member of the Electorate if you are at least a
Contributor in any collective.
-John
