Thanks for your $0.02, John. Based on my initial understanding and research, I am in favor of the third policy you noted: > 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. I think the CGs and Ps should retain complete control of their pages. The rest of the pages are what I'm calling the "common pages," and I can see the Website CG having responsibility for them, with the Website Editorial Board (WEB) having responsibility for approving significant changes to them.
When I spoke with Michelle Olson about the WEB, she used the term "common pages," so that's why I'm using it. (I see that the OpenSolaris Website Content Guidelines use the term "Main OpenSolaris Pages." One possible starting point might be to flesh out the terminology.) I just looked at most of the TBD pages on the wiki Alan created. I see most of them falling under the purview of the Website CG and the WEB. However, as you noted, legal stuff needs to rest with Sun. Alan notes the following Change/Review Authority for such pages: "Website Editorial Board approval & Sun Microsystems approval required." For example, I'd put the FAQ: Public Documentation License page in that category. We'd need to define what constitutes a "significant" change to the common pages as part of the processes we need to define. We'd also need to clarify the responsibilities of the Website CG vs. the WEB so we don't step on each other's toes. For example, can members of the WEB make changes to common web pages, or does the Website CG have that responsibility alone? (I'm asking that because in the back of my mind, I'm wondering if there would be any interest in having me do a copy edit of the common pages. I'm a technical editor here at Sun and would be happy to take that on. If not, that's fine, of course.) I can also see the possibility of the WEB offering editorial guidelines that the entire opensolaris.org site can benefit from. Notice I used the term "guidelines" not "rules." Others on the WEB, please chime in with your thoughts... Alysson John Plocher wrote: > 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]
