OGB Minutes, October 22, 2009
present:
Michelle
Peter
Valerie
JBeck
Jim
Plocher
Simon
sec'y: Deirdre
Procedural
1. Last week's meeting canceled due to lack of quorum.
2. Calendar items?
3. AI Review
◦ Valerie: send mail with writeup of in memoriam web page for site and process for adding to it
◦ Michelle to update draft constitution calendar in light of weekly meetings
◦ Michelle to send 1-pager to Bonnie's team for polling UI
◦ Michelle to post new draft of project instantiation
◦ AI for CG cleanup?
◦ DS Message to web team?
◦ DS Contributer grants: On Hold until notice from Bonnie about database work complete
◦ DS Contributer grants (bugs need to be be filed for all of these)
▪ Bug for Observability grants?
▪ Documentation: michelle (core contributor)
▪ Storage: CC grants: jforte??
▪ LDoms (bug 11088)
▪ SysAdmin (bug 11089)
▪ Printing (bug 11199)
▪ HPC (bug 11200)
New: Peter to submit bug for observability community, still going through others - what to convert to projects? This should be much easier with new XWiki infrastructure when that becomes available
Go back to biweekly meetings? General agreement. Next meeting Nov 5th [agenda/minutes links page updated to reflect this]
Business
All
Constitutional discussion http://www.co-ment.net/text/1506/ and http://opensolaris.org/jive/thread.jspa?threadID=115097&tstart=0
Jim: concerned that we are behind schedule with constitution
Michelle don't think we're far off our schedule, goal was to have a draft ready to talk about publicly and promote at beginning of November
Back to biweekly, so next meeting Nov 5th.
no activity on Co-Ment doc in last week
Simon: disappointed at lack of response
M: how have we promoted?
email went to core contributors
Plocher - if this set of changes passes, as expected, will apply to Co-Ment version. Then we can start promoting but be open to changes
Simon: move that we accept Plocher's changes
JW or PT: seconded
opposed? no one
passed [need a link to that email]
MO: may require 1:1 promotion
facilitators
Plocher: wd like feedback from web architects, get their suggestions while there's still time to implement changes
Jim: since const points to other docus - group mgt, lifecycle guidelines - this is more of a living doc. So we need to review those as well as they have many TBDs etc, are not complete at this time
MO: agreed
Jim?: can we assign each doc to someone on OGB to get ready for closure
from constitution at http://www.co-ment.net/text/1506/ - who's taking what?
• OGB Group Lifecycle Administrative Procedures -- Michelle
• OGB Electorate Membership Process -- Deirdré
• OGB Group Management Guidelines -- Michelle
• OGB Censure, Suspension and Expulsion Process - Valerie, JBeck
• OGB Constitutional Amendment Process - Jim
• OGB_2008/007 Policy on private OGB discussions - done
----------------
Tribble: Issues with structure (Membership and Groups) per email at http://opensolaris.org/jive/thread.jspa?threadID=114992&tstart=0
PT: concerned that current model falls apart for small, disorganized groups
MO: spirit of const is to let anyone who's interested in governance have a vote. Vetting happens within collective
JP: meritocracy - if you can prove participation you deserve a vote
but for small projects, leader may be effectively only member and project may be just getting off the ground - in this way, people who have done nothing get privileges
PT we want projects to be easy to set up
SP a matter of validating bona fides
JP if groups run themselves day to day using one set of guidelines eg leader to make wiki changes, putback,etc but we have a different/extra vocab and set of metrics to be part of the electorate, there is no motivation for anyone to do those extra steps to be part of electorate. how to define and track substantial contribution? risk is what happened to ARC process
JW current process too subjective and too onerous for whoever has to validate
JP current const process or current proposed draft process?
JW the doc that D is to edit
JW governance role is now distinct and no longer confused with other roles - doc could be less onerous and less subjective
SP objective vs subjective - as we were creating the original, we felt we should be inclusive - anyone who wanted to be involved and had any community claim at all should be allowed to be involved. Membership threshhold was "acting in good faith". When you get more objective about substantial contribution you have to have a huge list of what that means or language that is very biased in favor of one type of activity. "Come on in and be a disruptive element."
JW this electoral role requires as substantial contrib that they participate in community-wide elections ?
SP that's it, fairly irregular involvement. Our thinking was that as long as we prevented... [faded out]. If they could in any way prove they were in good standing. Problem was not having too many but having too few so that activity was not representative of community as a whole.
JW all of electorate cd come from one community
SP it's possible, but would happen with consent of everyone else
JW as currently set up we have some representation across all communities
JP current model is extreme meritocracy - if you have acquired merit, you must vote. New proposal is baseline of contrib lets you choose whether to be part of electorate
JW minimal req of affiliation with a community [as opposed to just project?]
JP in a world where it's easy to start a project, a project leader hasn't acquired merit right away and project may have only 1-2 members. currently you have to start a new CG with 3 existing leaders
MO/Val - if they're not interested...
SP have a cooling off period after formation of a group before you are qualified to join the electorate
[how can we measure participation]