Alysson Troffer wrote: > Hi John, > > Thanks for the clarification. > > My understanding is that this board/committee is responsible for the > common pages on opensolaris.org. Are you referring to elements on the > common pages that only need the kind of "self-review" that you describe? > I'm trying to get my head around the scope of responsibility that we have.
My $0.02 is that the editorial board and the OGB get to set the editorial policy for the entire OS.org site. We have an oportunity now with the new OGB to show that we *can* manage things in a way that benefits both the Community and Sun. Some of that policy already exists - the CGs and Ps have been delegated complete control of their own pages. Some of that policy is defacto obvious - responsibility for the legal stuff needs to rest with Sun. The policy for the rest (listed on the wiki) is in limbo, and is where I think it would be good to provide a guideline for changes that carves out some boundaries and sets expectations. Some examples of potential policies: A "status quo" policy says that nothing non-trivial can be done at all, and trivial stuff needs to be debated and approved by a committee. A "must be in complete control" policy might say that all types of change are possible, but that the OGB or its Editorial Board must debate and approve every single change. A "delegate to a CG" policy might say CG & P stuff belongs to the CGs and Ps, the copyright and trademark stuff belongs to Sun, and the rest belongs to the Website CG, which is expected to identify significant change requests and allow for OGB/EB discussion about them before they are deployed. A "wide open" policy might give every CC member of every community web editor permissions on every page (similar to genunix's wiki) and let things evolve and change as the spirit moves people, based on the feeling that if things are easy to change, they are also easy to fix. Personally, I'm inclined towards the last two; the first two seem to be based on a fear of failure: we can't make mistakes in public, we can't simply iterate and evolve as we learn more, things must be secret and unexposed until they are perfect, at which point (and only at that point) is it safe to reveal the results.... > I'm also thinking that some changes might require more than a "+1" or > "-1" vote. What if we agree in principle with a suggested change but > would like to suggest some tweaks? How do we handle that? Let the people who are motivated to do the work go do it, and if others are motivated to improve it, let them do that as well. If there is a disagreement between the two, the EB policy for dispute resolution gets invoked. (such a policy is highly dependent on the overall mindset that was adopted: control -vs- CG -vs- wide open, but it might be as easy as "this is where the EB gets involved and requires a EB vote"...) All in all, this is an area for "doers" and not "talkers". -John _______________________________________________ website-discuss mailing list [email protected]
