On Fri, Jul 10, 2009 at 7:09 PM, Jim Grisanzio<[email protected]> wrote: > > There are two requirements we must implement -- the written constitution and > the reality of how the community actually functions. We are merging the two.
It's unclear to me how the constitution comes into play. It doesn't (and never should) get into the nitty-gritty of who can edit files with xwiki or who has commit right to source code management systems. The constitution is about governance. > A primary role of Auth is to provide single sign-on across the multiple > applications that make up opensolaris.org. OK, identity management. That's fine. > So, a base set of roles is > defined. That set of roles is flexible enough to be interpreted by the > different client applications integrated with Auth. I suspect that this discussion indicates that it's not quite right, though. It's not even clear to me that assigning roles is the desired approach. What matters is whether a user has the appropriate privilege to do a certain operation - which boils down to "can edit X" or "can commit code to Y". As a project or community owner, I expect to assign those rights to individuals - independently of some abstract role they might have. (Sometimes they'll match; sometimes they won't.) > Some of the role names > are predetermined by the constitution, and others have been added to fill in > the gaps. Some rights are defined by the constitution, such as voting, and > some are defined by individual client applications, such as XWiki, SCM > Console, etc. A future constitution could define the base set of roles and > collectives, but that is not the reality today. The constitution doesn't need to. It needs to (by charter) define community roles, but we shouldn't go running to the constitution to decide whether someone can commit code or edit a web page. -- -Peter Tribble http://www.petertribble.co.uk/ - http://ptribble.blogspot.com/ _______________________________________________ website-discuss mailing list [email protected]
