|
Replies:
23
-
Last Post:
Apr 20, 2009 10:43 PM
by: jimgris
|
Threads:
[
Previous
|
Next
]
|
|
Posts:
1,271
From:
US
Registered:
10/6/05
|
|
|
|
[ogb-discuss] project proposal: Facilitation
Posted:
Apr 14, 2009 4:58 PM
|
|
The purpose of the Facilitation project is to bring together the 15-20
active OpenSolaris Community Group Facilitators to learn
from one another about the Facilitator role and to help increase voter
turnout by communicating election details via the project team.
Community Group Sponsor: OGB
Participants: Michelle Olson is point-of-contact,
potential participants include the following, but only two of them
have yet reviewed this proposal:
David Chieu, Vincent R Wang, William Kucharski,
Ceri Davies, Darren Moffat, Nicolas Solter, Liane Praza,
Sunay Tripathi, Dan Price, Damian Wojslaw, Mark Nelson,
Lisa Week, John Levon, Lynn Rohrer, Octave Orgeron, Alan Coopersmith,
Alan McClellan and any other active CG facilitators I've missed.
Shortname: facilitation
Description: This project would attempt to implement the Facilitator role
that is described in the Constitution by creating a formal project around it.
The immediate goal is to help current facilitators and their community groups to
better understand the OpenSolaris yearly election, voting details and specifics
of grant updates by engaging with other experienced OpenSolaris facilitators.
A future goal would be to expand the group to include representatives from all
community groups so that we fully satisfy the constitutional requirement.
Thanks,
Michelle
_______________________________________________
ogb-discuss mailing list
ogb-discuss at opensolaris dot org
http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/ogb-discuss
|
|
|
Posts:
285
From:
US
Registered:
3/9/05
|
|
|
|
Re: [ogb-discuss] project proposal: Facilitation
Posted:
Apr 14, 2009 6:04 PM
in response to: michelle
|
|
On Tue, 14 Apr 2009, Michelle Olson wrote:
> The purpose of the Facilitation project is to bring together the 15-20 active
> OpenSolaris Community Group Facilitators to learn from one another about the
> Facilitator role and to help increase voter
> turnout by communicating election details via the project team.
>
> Community Group Sponsor: OGB
>
> Participants: Michelle Olson is point-of-contact, potential participants
> include the following, but only two of them
> have yet reviewed this proposal:
>
> David Chieu, Vincent R Wang, William Kucharski, Ceri Davies, Darren Moffat,
> Nicolas Solter, Liane Praza, Sunay Tripathi, Dan Price, Damian Wojslaw, Mark
> Nelson, Lisa Week, John Levon, Lynn Rohrer, Octave Orgeron, Alan Coopersmith,
> Alan McClellan and any other active CG facilitators I've missed.
>
> Shortname: facilitation
>
> Description: This project would attempt to implement the Facilitator role
> that is described in the Constitution by creating a formal project around it.
> The immediate goal is to help current facilitators and their community groups
> to better understand the OpenSolaris yearly election, voting details and
> specifics of grant updates by engaging with other experienced OpenSolaris
> facilitators.
> A future goal would be to expand the group to include representatives from
> all community groups so that we fully satisfy the constitutional requirement.
+1 I think this is a great idea.
Valerie
--
Valerie Fenwick, http://blogs.sun.com/bubbva
Solaris Security Technologies, Developer, Sun Microsystems, Inc.
17 Network Circle, Menlo Park, CA, 94025.
_______________________________________________
ogb-discuss mailing list
ogb-discuss at opensolaris dot org
http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/ogb-discuss
|
|
|
|
|
Posts:
1,495
From:
Registered:
5/18/05
|
|
|
|
Re: [ogb-discuss] project proposal: Facilitation
Posted:
Apr 14, 2009 7:23 PM
in response to: bubbva
|
|
+1 as well
-John
On Tue, Apr 14, 2009 at 6:04 PM, Valerie Bubb Fenwick
<Valerie dot Fenwick at sun dot com> wrote:
> On Tue, 14 Apr 2009, Michelle Olson wrote:
>
>> The purpose of the Facilitation project is
>
> +1 I think this is a great idea.
_______________________________________________
ogb-discuss mailing list
ogb-discuss at opensolaris dot org
http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/ogb-discuss
|
|
|
|
|
Posts:
513
From:
US
Registered:
6/14/05
|
|
|
|
Re: [ogb-discuss] project proposal: Facilitation
Posted:
Apr 14, 2009 7:49 PM
in response to: michelle
|
|
+1, sounds like a good idea.
*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*Octave J. Orgeron
Solaris Virtualization Architect and Consultant
Web: http://unixconsole.blogspot.com
E-Mail: unixconsole at yahoo dot com
*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*
----- Original Message ----
From: Michelle Olson <michelle dot olson at sun dot com>
To: ogb-discuss at opensolaris dot org
Sent: Tuesday, April 14, 2009 6:58:57 PM
Subject: [ogb-discuss] project proposal: Facilitation
The purpose of the Facilitation project is to bring together the 15-20 active OpenSolaris Community Group Facilitators to learn from one another about the Facilitator role and to help increase voter
turnout by communicating election details via the project team.
Community Group Sponsor: OGB
Participants: Michelle Olson is point-of-contact, potential participants include the following, but only two of them
have yet reviewed this proposal:
David Chieu, Vincent R Wang, William Kucharski, Ceri Davies, Darren Moffat, Nicolas Solter, Liane Praza, Sunay Tripathi, Dan Price, Damian Wojslaw, Mark Nelson, Lisa Week, John Levon, Lynn Rohrer, Octave Orgeron, Alan Coopersmith,
Alan McClellan and any other active CG facilitators I've missed.
Shortname: facilitation
Description: This project would attempt to implement the Facilitator role
that is described in the Constitution by creating a formal project around it.
The immediate goal is to help current facilitators and their community groups to better understand the OpenSolaris yearly election, voting details and specifics of grant updates by engaging with other experienced OpenSolaris facilitators.
A future goal would be to expand the group to include representatives from all community groups so that we fully satisfy the constitutional requirement.
Thanks,
Michelle
_______________________________________________
ogb-discuss mailing list
ogb-discuss at opensolaris dot org
http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/ogb-discuss
_______________________________________________
ogb-discuss mailing list
ogb-discuss at opensolaris dot org
http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/ogb-discuss
|
|
|
|
|
Posts:
1,300
From:
US
Registered:
4/21/05
|
|
|
|
Re: [ogb-discuss] project proposal: Facilitation
Posted:
Apr 14, 2009 8:57 PM
in response to: michelle
|
|
Michelle Olson wrote:
> The purpose of the Facilitation project is to bring together the 15-20
> active OpenSolaris Community Group Facilitators to learn from one
> another about the Facilitator role and to help increase voter
> turnout by communicating election details via the project team.
>
> Community Group Sponsor: OGB
>
> Participants: Michelle Olson is point-of-contact, potential participants
> include the following, but only two of them
> have yet reviewed this proposal:
>
> David Chieu, Vincent R Wang, William Kucharski, Ceri Davies, Darren
> Moffat, Nicolas Solter, Liane Praza, Sunay Tripathi, Dan Price, Damian
> Wojslaw, Mark Nelson, Lisa Week, John Levon, Lynn Rohrer, Octave
> Orgeron, Alan Coopersmith,
> Alan McClellan and any other active CG facilitators I've missed.
+1
BTW. I thought I was on this list. If you
want another one, you can add me.
Cheers,
Jim
_______________________________________________
ogb-discuss mailing list
ogb-discuss at opensolaris dot org
http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/ogb-discuss
|
|
|
|
|
Posts:
5,504
From:
US
Registered:
3/9/05
|
|
|
|
Re: [ogb-discuss] project proposal: Facilitation
Posted:
Apr 15, 2009 7:52 AM
in response to: jwalker
|
|
Jim Walker wrote:
> Michelle Olson wrote:
>> The purpose of the Facilitation project is to bring together the 15-20
>> active OpenSolaris Community Group Facilitators to learn from one
>> another about the Facilitator role and to help increase voter
>> turnout by communicating election details via the project team.
>>
>> Community Group Sponsor: OGB
>>
>> Participants: Michelle Olson is point-of-contact, potential
>> participants include the following, but only two of them
>> have yet reviewed this proposal:
>>
>> David Chieu, Vincent R Wang, William Kucharski, Ceri Davies, Darren
>> Moffat, Nicolas Solter, Liane Praza, Sunay Tripathi, Dan Price, Damian
>> Wojslaw, Mark Nelson, Lisa Week, John Levon, Lynn Rohrer, Octave
>> Orgeron, Alan Coopersmith,
>> Alan McClellan and any other active CG facilitators I've missed.
>
> +1
>
> BTW. I thought I was on this list. If you
> want another one, you can add me.
Hopefully one problem this will solve is that we currently have no list of
all the facilitators, so have to rely on people remembering who has sent in
contributor grants and other communications from their community groups.
Michelle clearly remembers far more than I could have come up with off the
top of my head, but I'm sure there's more out there we can bring in once
they know we're doing this.
+1 if it counts (Michelle & I had an interesting discussion on this point
yesterday - for most communities, projects get +1'ed by any Core Contributor
- for the OGB/At-Large community, naming Core Contributors is specially
restricted to voting by the OGB members only, but we never specified who
gets to vote on other matters, like project creation).
--
-Alan Coopersmith- alan dot coopersmith at sun dot com
Sun Microsystems, Inc. - X Window System Engineering
_______________________________________________
ogb-discuss mailing list
ogb-discuss at opensolaris dot org
http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/ogb-discuss
|
|
|
|
|
Posts:
1,575
From:
GB
Registered:
4/27/05
|
|
|
|
Re: [ogb-discuss] project proposal: Facilitation
Posted:
Apr 16, 2009 2:34 PM
in response to: michelle
|
|
On Wed, Apr 15, 2009 at 12:58 AM, Michelle Olson <michelle dot olson at sun dot com> wrote:
> The purpose of the Facilitation project is to bring together the 15-20
> active OpenSolaris Community Group Facilitators to learn from one another
> about the Facilitator role and to help increase voter
> turnout by communicating election details via the project team.
>
> Community Group Sponsor: OGB
>
> Participants: Michelle Olson is point-of-contact, potential participants
> include the following, but only two of them
> have yet reviewed this proposal:
>
> David Chieu, Vincent R Wang, William Kucharski, Ceri Davies, Darren Moffat,
> Nicolas Solter, Liane Praza, Sunay Tripathi, Dan Price, Damian Wojslaw, Mark
> Nelson, Lisa Week, John Levon, Lynn Rohrer, Octave Orgeron, Alan
> Coopersmith,
> Alan McClellan and any other active CG facilitators I've missed.
Such as myself...
> Shortname: facilitation
>
> Description: This project would attempt to implement the Facilitator role
> that is described in the Constitution by creating a formal project around
> it.
> The immediate goal is to help current facilitators and their community
> groups to better understand the OpenSolaris yearly election, voting details
> and specifics of grant updates by engaging with other experienced
> OpenSolaris facilitators.
> A future goal would be to expand the group to include representatives from
> all community groups so that we fully satisfy the constitutional
> requirement.
That would be under the current constitution, which does have facilitators.
The new draft version didn't, although I thought that each collective ought
to have a named point of contact (which is really what the facilitator role is).
And also the new constitution didn't have the hierarchy of a (small) set of
CGs above a (large) set of projects, but is much flatter. In that real world,
every CG, project, and user group would be the same and all would have
a facilitator - making quite a large population.
So what I would like to see is a clearer understanding of what the facilitators
are really for, in a way that transcends the organisational minutiae embedded
in the current constitution and isn't so explicitly tied to a specific
structure.
--
-Peter Tribble
http://www.petertribble.co.uk/ - http://ptribble.blogspot.com/
_______________________________________________
ogb-discuss mailing list
ogb-discuss at opensolaris dot org
http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/ogb-discuss
|
|
|
|
|
Posts:
689
From:
GB
Registered:
5/18/05
|
|
|
|
Re: [ogb-discuss] project proposal: Facilitation
Posted:
Apr 16, 2009 3:11 PM
in response to: ptribble
|
|
On Apr 16, 2009, at 23:34, Peter Tribble wrote:
> That would be under the current constitution, which does have
> facilitators.
> The new draft version didn't, although I thought that each
> collective ought
> to have a named point of contact (which is really what the
> facilitator role is).
> And also the new constitution didn't have the hierarchy of a (small)
> set of
> CGs above a (large) set of projects, but is much flatter. In that
> real world,
> every CG, project, and user group would be the same and all would have
> a facilitator - making quite a large population.
>
> So what I would like to see is a clearer understanding of what the
> facilitators
> are really for, in a way that transcends the organisational minutiae
> embedded
> in the current constitution and isn't so explicitly tied to a specific
> structure.
More generally, this is my major concern about the attitude that says
the revision of the constitution is a "tired topic" to be ignored for
as long as possible (with or without a community poll to add to the
delay). We have already had several items arise which refer to the
current constitution, which we know to be broken in a way that puts it
beyond in-place repair. If we do new things now with that document as
our reference, the work will need to be refactored in the future when
the new one is introduced.
I therefore request that the OGB consider its strategy for replacing
the constitution with one more suited to the current needs of the
community as a matter of priority. I note it's not even on the agenda
list at present, let alone the agenda.
S.
_______________________________________________
ogb-discuss mailing list
ogb-discuss at opensolaris dot org
http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/ogb-discuss
|
|
|
|
|
Posts:
285
From:
US
Registered:
3/9/05
|
|
|
|
Re: [ogb-discuss] project proposal: Facilitation
Posted:
Apr 16, 2009 3:16 PM
in response to: webmink
|
|
On Fri, 17 Apr 2009, Simon Phipps wrote:
>
> On Apr 16, 2009, at 23:34, Peter Tribble wrote:
>> That would be under the current constitution, which does have facilitators.
>> The new draft version didn't, although I thought that each collective ought
>> to have a named point of contact (which is really what the facilitator role
>> is).
>> And also the new constitution didn't have the hierarchy of a (small) set of
>> CGs above a (large) set of projects, but is much flatter. In that real
>> world,
>> every CG, project, and user group would be the same and all would have
>> a facilitator - making quite a large population.
>>
>> So what I would like to see is a clearer understanding of what the
>> facilitators
>> are really for, in a way that transcends the organisational minutiae
>> embedded
>> in the current constitution and isn't so explicitly tied to a specific
>> structure.
>
> More generally, this is my major concern about the attitude that says the
> revision of the constitution is a "tired topic" to be ignored for as long as
> possible (with or without a community poll to add to the delay). We have
> already had several items arise which refer to the current constitution,
> which we know to be broken in a way that puts it beyond in-place repair. If
> we do new things now with that document as our reference, the work will need
> to be refactored in the future when the new one is introduced.
>
> I therefore request that the OGB consider its strategy for replacing the
> constitution with one more suited to the current needs of the community as a
> matter of priority. I note it's not even on the agenda list at present, let
> alone the agenda.
Hi Simon -
Today's agenda was full of policies to consider for our term, which will dictate
how the OGB acts wrt to everything we do going forward. Unfortunately, we didn't
have enough folks to get definitive votes on many items today (several were split
50/50), so their back on the agenda for next Thursday.
I think we need to do those *first* and then we can continue our discussion on
priorities.
Valerie
--
Valerie Fenwick, http://blogs.sun.com/bubbva
Solaris Security Technologies, Developer, Sun Microsystems, Inc.
17 Network Circle, Menlo Park, CA, 94025.
_______________________________________________
ogb-discuss mailing list
ogb-discuss at opensolaris dot org
http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/ogb-discuss
|
|
|
|
|
Posts:
689
From:
GB
Registered:
5/18/05
|
|
|
|
Re: [ogb-discuss] project proposal: Facilitation
Posted:
Apr 16, 2009 3:25 PM
in response to: bubbva
|
|
On Apr 17, 2009, at 00:16, Valerie Bubb Fenwick wrote:
>
> Today's agenda was full of policies to consider for our term, which
> will dictate
> how the OGB acts wrt to everything we do going forward.
> Unfortunately, we didn't
> have enough folks to get definitive votes on many items today
> (several were split
> 50/50), so their back on the agenda for next Thursday.
>
> I think we need to do those *first* and then we can continue our
> discussion on
> priorities.
Right, understood as a pragmatic & temporary matter.
Concerning strategy, I'm asserting that we have a very clear priority
to get the almost-finished constitution iterated & ratified so the new
work we do fits it. I'm unhappy that it's been pushed off the agenda,
onto a "priorities" discussion and with the implication that the
outcome of that discussion itself will get tested by a future "poll" -
effectively procedural cancellation of the discussion. This is
wasting time as well as wasting the work of the previous Board, and I
want to hear clearly from the OGB who it is wants that waste and why.
S.
_______________________________________________
ogb-discuss mailing list
ogb-discuss at opensolaris dot org
http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/ogb-discuss
|
|
|
|
|
Posts:
1,901
From:
NZ
Registered:
6/16/05
|
|
|
|
Re: [ogb-discuss] project proposal: Facilitation
Posted:
Apr 16, 2009 3:32 PM
in response to: webmink
|
|
On 17/04/2009, at 10:25 AM, Simon Phipps wrote:
> Concerning strategy, I'm asserting that we have a very clear
> priority to get the almost-finished constitution iterated & ratified
> so the new work we do fits it. I'm unhappy that it's been pushed off
> the agenda, onto a "priorities" discussion and with the implication
> that the outcome of that discussion itself will get tested by a
> future "poll" - effectively procedural cancellation of the
> discussion. This is wasting time as well as wasting the work of the
> previous Board, and I want to hear clearly from the OGB who it is
> wants that waste and why.
As a former OGB member, I agree with Simon. We've made a lot of
progress last year into creating a constitution that allowed people to
get work done rather than struggle with the complexity of the current
constitution. It would be a shame to lose that work.
Glynn
_______________________________________________
ogb-discuss mailing list
ogb-discuss at opensolaris dot org
http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/ogb-discuss
|
|
|
|
|
Posts:
1,271
From:
US
Registered:
10/6/05
|
|
|
|
Re: [ogb-discuss] project proposal: Facilitation
Posted:
Apr 16, 2009 4:01 PM
in response to: gman
|
|
On 04/16/09 15:32, Glynn Foster wrote:
>
> On 17/04/2009, at 10:25 AM, Simon Phipps wrote:
>
>> Concerning strategy, I'm asserting that we have a very clear priority
>> to get the almost-finished constitution iterated & ratified so the
>> new work we do fits it. I'm unhappy that it's been pushed off the
>> agenda, onto a "priorities" discussion and with the implication that
>> the outcome of that discussion itself will get tested by a future
>> "poll" - effectively procedural cancellation of the discussion. This
>> is wasting time as well as wasting the work of the previous Board,
>> and I want to hear clearly from the OGB who it is wants that waste
>> and why.
>
> As a former OGB member, I agree with Simon. We've made a lot of
> progress last year into creating a constitution that allowed people to
> get work done rather than struggle with the complexity of the current
> constitution. It would be a shame to lose that work.
We are on a path to resolve the strategy question by the end of this
month. This is far from going on endlessly, it is merely giving us a
reasonable chance at an informed decision. I'm confident that on May 1st
we will have a decision about how to move forward.
Regards,
Michelle
_______________________________________________
ogb-discuss mailing list
ogb-discuss at opensolaris dot org
http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/ogb-discuss
|
|
|
|
|
Posts:
285
From:
US
Registered:
3/9/05
|
|
|
|
Re: [ogb-discuss] project proposal: Facilitation
Posted:
Apr 16, 2009 3:55 PM
in response to: webmink
|
|
On Fri, 17 Apr 2009, Simon Phipps wrote:
>
> On Apr 17, 2009, at 00:16, Valerie Bubb Fenwick wrote:
>>
>> Today's agenda was full of policies to consider for our term, which will
>> dictate
>> how the OGB acts wrt to everything we do going forward. Unfortunately, we
>> didn't
>> have enough folks to get definitive votes on many items today (several were
>> split
>> 50/50), so their back on the agenda for next Thursday.
>>
>> I think we need to do those *first* and then we can continue our discussion
>> on
>> priorities.
>
> Right, understood as a pragmatic & temporary matter.
>
> Concerning strategy, I'm asserting that we have a very clear priority to get
> the almost-finished constitution iterated & ratified so the new work we do
> fits it. I'm unhappy that it's been pushed off the agenda, onto a
> "priorities" discussion and with the implication that the outcome of that
> discussion itself will get tested by a future "poll" - effectively procedural
> cancellation of the discussion. This is wasting time as well as wasting the
> work of the previous Board, and I want to hear clearly from the OGB who it is
> wants that waste and why.
Hi Simon -
I realize you couldn't make the meeting today, but this was discussed.
I don't think anyone is planning on wasting time.
My idea for a poll was floated in *last* week's OGB meeting, I don't
recall anyone saying it was a terrible idea. In fact, I thought everyone
was on board with it. If you don't want to run a poll, just say so,
but please do not imply that I'm attempting to derail work on the
constitution by suggesting we see what the community wants us to work on.
In today's meeting, we decided to forgo a poll and move forward with
a suggestion box, to help us identify areas we may be missing that
people want us to work on. Nobody implied we would do this at the
exclusion of working on the constitution.
The only point of contention, that I'm aware of, is whether we run
a special election for the new constitution or wait until the next
general election. I think we have many other issues to work out before
we even get to that point.
Valerie
--
Valerie Fenwick, http://blogs.sun.com/bubbva
Solaris Security Technologies, Developer, Sun Microsystems, Inc.
17 Network Circle, Menlo Park, CA, 94025.
_______________________________________________
ogb-discuss mailing list
ogb-discuss at opensolaris dot org
http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/ogb-discuss
|
|
|
|
|
Posts:
689
From:
GB
Registered:
5/18/05
|
|
|
|
Re: [ogb-discuss] project proposal: Facilitation
Posted:
Apr 16, 2009 4:06 PM
in response to: bubbva
|
|
On Apr 17, 2009, at 00:55, Valerie Bubb Fenwick wrote:
> :
> :
Not accusing you of anything, apologies if you read it that way,
although I am not a big fan of a priorities poll; that particular
instrument has a poor record as an instrument of democracy!
> The only point of contention, that I'm aware of, is whether we run
> a special election for the new constitution or wait until the next
> general election.
I don't think that's true; Michelle, for example, wants us to pass a
policy statement saying we will only create amendments to the current
document, and she has also proposed a new project to enact part of
that constitution more precisely. By avoiding the discussion we are
having a decision made for us by default to discard the new draft,
only make amendments to the old document and delay revision until next
year.
> I think we have many other issues to work out before
> we even get to that point
I think it's as simple as Peter asserts and I suggest we pick up the
thread over there.
S.
_______________________________________________
ogb-discuss mailing list
ogb-discuss at opensolaris dot org
http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/ogb-discuss
|
|
|
|
|
Posts:
1,271
From:
US
Registered:
10/6/05
|
|
|
|
Re: [ogb-discuss] project proposal: Facilitation
Posted:
Apr 16, 2009 4:58 PM
in response to: webmink
|
|
On 04/16/09 16:06, Simon Phipps wrote:
>
> I don't think that's true; Michelle, for example, wants us to pass a
> policy statement saying we will only create amendments to the current
> document,
The policy proposal is for board consideration, I do not care whether it
passes or fails, I want only to know the result.
> and she has also proposed a new project to enact part of that
> constitution more precisely. By avoiding the discussion we are having
> a decision made for us by default to discard the new draft, only make
> amendments to the old document and delay revision until next year.
No, the public vote puts us where we are today, nothing I have done. We
will allow one month to assess this situation and then make a decision
as a team and publish it May 1st.
-M
_______________________________________________
ogb-discuss mailing list
ogb-discuss at opensolaris dot org
http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/ogb-discuss
|
|
|
|
|
Posts:
689
From:
GB
Registered:
5/18/05
|
|
|
|
Re: [ogb-discuss] project proposal: Facilitation
Posted:
Apr 16, 2009 5:37 PM
in response to: michelle
|
|
On Apr 17, 2009, at 01:58, Michelle Olson wrote:
> We will allow one month to assess this situation and then make a
> decision as a team and publish it May 1st.
Is that decision minuted somewhere?
S.
_______________________________________________
ogb-discuss mailing list
ogb-discuss at opensolaris dot org
http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/ogb-discuss
|
|
|
|
|
Posts:
1,271
From:
US
Registered:
10/6/05
|
|
|
|
Re: [ogb-discuss] project proposal: Facilitation
Posted:
Apr 16, 2009 7:07 PM
in response to: webmink
|
|
On 04/16/09 17:37, Simon Phipps wrote:
>
> On Apr 17, 2009, at 01:58, Michelle Olson wrote:
>
>> We will allow one month to assess this situation and then make a
>> decision as a team and publish it May 1st.
>
> Is that decision minuted somewhere?
>
> S.
>
It might be. The discussion during our meeting today seemed fairly clear
that we're not quite ready to make a decision that we can publish. Peter
talked through his list of possibilities and we all thought it was a
good list. I mentioned the end of the month goal and no one disagreed it
was a good goal.
We've been in office *12 working days*, two members and the liaison have
been on vacation a number of those days, and we've had only one meeting
with quorum. So, this very minor delay is the best we can do to give
everyone a chance to gather data on which to base a sound decision about
our team strategy for this term.
Regards,
Michelle
_______________________________________________
ogb-discuss mailing list
ogb-discuss at opensolaris dot org
http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/ogb-discuss
|
|
|
|
|
Posts:
285
From:
US
Registered:
3/9/05
|
|
|
|
Re: [ogb-discuss] project proposal: Facilitation
Posted:
Apr 17, 2009 3:14 PM
in response to: michelle
|
|
On Thu, 16 Apr 2009, Michelle Olson wrote:
> On 04/16/09 17:37, Simon Phipps wrote:
>>
>> On Apr 17, 2009, at 01:58, Michelle Olson wrote:
>>
>>> We will allow one month to assess this situation and then make a decision
>>> as a team and publish it May 1st.
>>
>> Is that decision minuted somewhere?
>>
>> S.
>>
> It might be. The discussion during our meeting today seemed fairly clear that
> we're not quite ready to make a decision that we can publish. Peter talked
> through his list of possibilities and we all thought it was a good list. I
> mentioned the end of the month goal and no one disagreed it was a good goal.
That sounds about right.
> We've been in office *12 working days*, two members and the liaison have been
> on vacation a number of those days, and we've had only one meeting with
> quorum. So, this very minor delay is the best we can do to give everyone a
> chance to gather data on which to base a sound decision about our team
> strategy for this term.
Slight correction - we did have quorum, technically, this week, but with
only four of us - any disagreement led to an item being tabled, as we didn't
think it would be fair to let such a small number of us decide the policies
for the term for everyone :)
Valerie
--
Valerie Fenwick, http://blogs.sun.com/bubbva
Solaris Security Technologies, Developer, Sun Microsystems, Inc.
17 Network Circle, Menlo Park, CA, 94025.
_______________________________________________
ogb-discuss mailing list
ogb-discuss at opensolaris dot org
http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/ogb-discuss
|
|
|
|
|
Posts:
1,271
From:
US
Registered:
10/6/05
|
|
|
|
Re: [ogb-discuss] project proposal: Facilitation
Posted:
Apr 16, 2009 7:00 PM
in response to: ptribble
|
|
On 04/16/09 14:34, Peter Tribble wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 15, 2009 at 12:58 AM, Michelle Olson <michelle dot olson at sun dot com> wrote:
>
>> The purpose of the Facilitation project is to bring together the 15-20
>> active OpenSolaris Community Group Facilitators to learn from one another
>> about the Facilitator role and to help increase voter
>> turnout by communicating election details via the project team.
>>
>> Community Group Sponsor: OGB
>>
>> Participants: Michelle Olson is point-of-contact, potential participants
>> include the following, but only two of them
>> have yet reviewed this proposal:
>>
>> David Chieu, Vincent R Wang, William Kucharski, Ceri Davies, Darren Moffat,
>> Nicolas Solter, Liane Praza, Sunay Tripathi, Dan Price, Damian Wojslaw, Mark
>> Nelson, Lisa Week, John Levon, Lynn Rohrer, Octave Orgeron, Alan
>> Coopersmith,
>> Alan McClellan and any other active CG facilitators I've missed.
>>
>
> Such as myself...
>
Ah, sorry, for which CG?
>
>> Shortname: facilitation
>>
>> Description: This project would attempt to implement the Facilitator role
>> that is described in the Constitution by creating a formal project around
>> it.
>> The immediate goal is to help current facilitators and their community
>> groups to better understand the OpenSolaris yearly election, voting details
>> and specifics of grant updates by engaging with other experienced
>> OpenSolaris facilitators.
>> A future goal would be to expand the group to include representatives from
>> all community groups so that we fully satisfy the constitutional
>> requirement.
>>
>
> That would be under the current constitution, which does have facilitators.
> The new draft version didn't, although I thought that each collective ought
> to have a named point of contact (which is really what the facilitator role is).
>
Right, a point of contact who manages the records, reports status to
OGB, and ensures that communication from OGB is properly disseminated to
participants. The Facilitator is the connection between OGB and all the
groups (community groups, project groups, user groups and any other new
group types that surface).
> And also the new constitution didn't have the hierarchy of a (small) set of
> CGs above a (large) set of projects, but is much flatter. In that real world,
> every CG, project, and user group would be the same and all would have
> a facilitator - making quite a large population.
>
If we could be so successful to get, say, 200 facilitators, we could
break it into the group types. So, we'd have a CG facilitators list, a
project group facilitators list, and a user group facilitators list--way
in the future. This could also enable the groups to have a place to
propose new ballot measures needed by their group type, develop
interfaces for the polling mechanism, anything related to improving
election processes for their groups specifically, or for the greater
community related to the yearly vote. At some point in the future, when
non-Sun participants can make updates to the polling database, this
would be the group.
> So what I would like to see is a clearer understanding of what the facilitators
> are really for, in a way that transcends the organisational minutiae embedded
> in the current constitution and isn't so explicitly tied to a specific structure.
>
>
The Facilitators will have a mail list they can use to ask questions
about the upcoming elections, details about how to vote, when to vote,
candidate lists, issues with the polling mechanism, details about
expiring grants and how to renew them, election calendar dissemination,
information about the annual meeting, ballot measures, etc. And when one
person asks a question, everyone learns the answer. We answered tons of
duplicate questions about renewals last year.
So, having a new list with the specific goal of exchanging information
about the election that holds the members responsible for dissemination
is a good step forward. It is also low-overhead for facilitators who are
darned busy, they just sit on the list and forward the info or ask
questions they get. Because the forward comes from them, it is more
likely to be seen as important and useful to the members of their lists.
In any structure, we need a central group that is larger than the 7 of
us to conduct an effective election. At the beginning it needn't be so
large as to require inclusion of a rep. for every group, but ~50 people
would be an ideal number to help get the information out to all the
various corners of our community and ensure that everyone is able to log
in successfully, is aware of their voting status and the polling window,
and has access to someone they trust to help them with any problems they
encounter on their joy-ride through ssh keys, proxies, leading and
trailing spaces, etc.
Facilitators could work together across the entire project to fix the
root causes of low voter turnout (having a single group for OGB to
communicate with rather than 47, less than optimal voting interfaces,
and anything else we uncover as problematic).
Thanks,
Michelle
_______________________________________________
ogb-discuss mailing list
ogb-discuss at opensolaris dot org
http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/ogb-discuss
|
|
|
|
|
Posts:
3,835
From:
JP
Registered:
4/6/05
|
|
|
|
Re: [ogb-discuss] project proposal: Facilitation
Posted:
Apr 16, 2009 11:16 PM
in response to: michelle
|
|
On 04/17/09 11:00, Michelle Olson wrote:
> On 04/16/09 14:34, Peter Tribble wrote:
>>>
>>> The immediate goal is to help current facilitators and their community
>>> groups to better understand the OpenSolaris yearly election, voting
>>> details
>>> and specifics of grant updates by engaging with other experienced
>>> OpenSolaris facilitators.
This would be very valuable.
I found getting info out about the election very difficult (either in my
role on the OGB or as Facilitator for Advocacy or even just as a long
time member of this community. I have often thought about why this is
so, and last year I came to the conclusion that, although well
intentioned, the vast majority of people in the community simply aren't
interested in governance issues. That doesn't have to be seen as a
negative statement, but it does require a different perspective when
designing governance mechanisms. In my view, the voting membership of
the community should be relatively small and consist of people who are
interested in looking out for the community's long term future -- just
like the OGB itself.
>>> A future goal would be to expand the group to include
>>> representatives from
>>> all community groups so that we fully satisfy the constitutional
>>> requirement.
The OGB can act on this requirement right now. The constitution states
directly in 7.5 that the OGB appoints Facilitators to the CGs. So, in
reality, the reporting discussion going on in the other thread was
already considered and written into the current constitution. The
problem is that the concept was never implemented by the previous
boards. So, it seems to me that any interested board member could drive
this or the OGB could create a committee to do it. Doing it as a project
proposal is fine, too.
>> That would be under the current constitution, which does have
>> facilitators.
>> The new draft version didn't, although I thought that each collective
>> ought
>> to have a named point of contact (which is really what the
>> facilitator role is).
>>
> Right, a point of contact who manages the records, reports status to
> OGB, and ensures that communication from OGB is properly disseminated
> to participants. The Facilitator is the connection between OGB and all
> the groups (community groups, project groups, user groups and any
> other new group types that surface).
>
>> And also the new constitution didn't have the hierarchy of a (small)
>> set of
>> CGs above a (large) set of projects, but is much flatter. In that
>> real world,
>> every CG, project, and user group would be the same and all would have
>> a facilitator - making quite a large population.
In theory, yes, I agree. In practice, no, I don't think the population
will be large at all. :) We have already seen that the characteristic of
the community is to not be that interested in governance at any large
scale. Also, the previous OGBs weren't interested in implementing this
Facilitator feature of the constitution, so that is why I argued so
strongly to cut it. There's no need to have processes on the books if we
are not going to actively implement and refine them. A great deal can be
learned about a process by simply trying to implement it. All you coders
know that. And it's no different for us project management types.
Also, regarding the flattening of the community articulated in the new
constitution: as we took out the Facilitator role we expected that the
new Leader role would fulfill whatever minimum interactions were needed
between the OGB and the individual group. That's not well defined in the
new constitution itself, but that could be beefed up in the project
lifecycle process document, which has a provision in there for archiving
Groups. That process document, which is intentionally outside the
constitution so it can be updated more easily, is where the OGB could
create a committee to manage the interactions that it needs to initiate
with groups.
> If we could be so successful to get, say, 200 facilitators, we could
> break it into the group types. So, we'd have a CG facilitators list, a
> project group facilitators list, and a user group facilitators
> list--way in the future.
As a long time project manager, I can appreciate this goal and I
certainly honor the intention. However, I don't see this particular
community scaling to this level of governance awareness. We don't really
have enough voters to justify such a large group of Facilitators. Plus,
regarding the UGs (currently 120), we've already seen that many (most,
probably) are very independent. They want a tie to the main community
and site, certainly, but not to the level of being actively involved in
the details of governance and voting and policies, etc. There are some
pretty big language and culture barriers to work through as well,
especially given the complexities of our current governance documents.
> This could also enable the groups to have a place to propose new
> ballot measures needed by their group type, develop interfaces for the
> polling mechanism, anything related to improving election processes
> for their groups specifically, or for the greater community related to
> the yearly vote. At some point in the future, when non-Sun
> participants can make updates to the polling database, this would be
> the group.
>
>> So what I would like to see is a clearer understanding of what the
>> facilitators
>> are really for, in a way that transcends the organizational minutiae
>> embedded
>> in the current constitution and isn't so explicitly tied to a
>> specific structure.
>>
>>
> The Facilitators will have a mail list they can use to ask questions
> about the upcoming elections, details about how to vote, when to vote,
> candidate lists, issues with the polling mechanism, details about
> expiring grants and how to renew them, election calendar
> dissemination, information about the annual meeting, ballot measures,
> etc. And when one person asks a question, everyone learns the answer.
> We answered tons of duplicate questions about renewals last year.
I know pretty much everyone disagrees with me on this issue, but all of
those issues above could have been handled by using the Core
Contributors list. We have a list for the CCs to talk to each other, and
voting is part of being a CC so I don't know why we never used that list
for this purpose. We only used it at the very end, but by then it was
too late.
There is value in having the Facilitators briefed on all these
processes, certainly, but in reality we have such a small voting
population that the CC list seemed like an efficient venue to directly
reach everyone who could possibly be involved in the election. If we
rely on Facilitators to do this information delivery job exclusively,
then they have to go to their lists, which may contain a great number of
people who are not interested in governance. I'd much rather keep the
voting population small and active and communicate with them directly
about governance issues. Then, over time, if we grow to any great degree
we can build processes to accommodate that growth.
In general, I think we ought to make things work small first before
thinking about how to build process for being big. Heck, we are
/already/ small. Let's recognize that. We are only talking about, what,
400 or so people in this last election?
> In any structure, we need a central group that is larger than the 7 of
> us to conduct an effective election. At the beginning it needn't be so
> large as to require inclusion of a rep. for every group, but ~50
> people would be an ideal number to help get the information out to all
> the various corners of our community and ensure that everyone is able
> to log in successfully, is aware of their voting status and the
> polling window, and has access to someone they trust to help them with
> any problems they encounter on their joy-ride through ssh keys,
> proxies, leading and trailing spaces, etc.
Again, I totally agree with the intention here. And thank you for
bringing this up. We will have to deal with this in some way, and if we
stick with the concept of Facilitators than a project to gather them
would be helpful. But I think the OGB could create an election committee
(or your project) with a hand full of people who have the time and the
desire to run the election. Part of the problem in the last two
elections has been the complexity of the election process itself. That,
too, was simplified in the new constitution.
Anyway, +1 to your proposal to get it going. I think it will be much
smaller than you are expecting, but I'm happy to participate. It will
help keep me involved to a degree since I do the project setups at the
moment.
Jim
--
http://twitter.com/jimgris
_______________________________________________
ogb-discuss mailing list
ogb-discuss at opensolaris dot org
http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/ogb-discuss
|
|
|
|
|
Posts:
1,271
From:
US
Registered:
10/6/05
|
|
|
|
Re: [ogb-discuss] project proposal: Facilitation
Posted:
Apr 20, 2009 2:44 PM
in response to: jimgris
|
|
Jim Grisanzio wrote:
> On 04/17/09 11:00, Michelle Olson wrote:
>> On 04/16/09 14:34, Peter Tribble wrote:
>>>>
>>>> The immediate goal is to help current facilitators and their community
>>>> groups to better understand the OpenSolaris yearly election, voting
>>>> details
>>>> and specifics of grant updates by engaging with other experienced
>>>> OpenSolaris facilitators.
>
> This would be very valuable.
Thanks Jim, for your complete response on this (snipped). You make an
important point about core-contrib-discuss mailing list that I think we
should talk about on the new project mailing list as we get started (a
plan to use that list should be part of what we do).
I'm really glad to have your participation in this project! We have our
needed +1s from Valerie, John, myself and others, so please get us set
up with the name 'facilitation', facilitation-discuss, etc. and let me
know if you need anything else from me (cc'ing project-setup). Here is
the final:
The purpose of the Facilitation project is to bring together the 15-20
active OpenSolaris Community Group Facilitators to learn from one
another about the Facilitator role and to help increase voter
turnout by communicating election details via the project team.
Community Group Sponsor: OGB
Participants: Michelle Olson is point-of-contact, potential participants
include the following:
David Chieu, Vincent R Wang, William Kucharski, Ceri Davies, Darren
Moffat, Nicolas Solter, Liane Praza, Sunay Tripathi, Dan Price, Damian
Wojslaw, Mark Nelson, Lisa Week, John Levon, Lynn Rohrer, Octave
Orgeron, Alan Coopersmith, John Beck, Jim Grisanzio, Peter Tribble
Alan McClellan and any other active CG facilitators I've missed.
Shortname: facilitation
Description: This project would attempt to implement the Facilitator role
that is described in the Constitution by creating a formal project
around it.
The immediate goal is to help current facilitators and their community
groups to better understand the OpenSolaris yearly election, voting
details and specifics of grant updates by engaging with other
experienced OpenSolaris facilitators.
A future goal would be to expand the group to include representatives
from all community groups so that we fully satisfy the constitutional
requirement.
Thanks,
Michelle
_______________________________________________
ogb-discuss mailing list
ogb-discuss at opensolaris dot org
http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/ogb-discuss
|
|
|
|
|
Shawn Walker
swalker@opensolaris....
|
|
|
|
Re: [ogb-discuss] project proposal: Facilitation
Posted:
Apr 20, 2009 4:37 PM
in response to: michelle
|
|
Michelle Olson wrote:
> Jim Grisanzio wrote:
>> On 04/17/09 11:00, Michelle Olson wrote:
>>> On 04/16/09 14:34, Peter Tribble wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> The immediate goal is to help current facilitators and their community
>>>>> groups to better understand the OpenSolaris yearly election, voting
>>>>> details
>>>>> and specifics of grant updates by engaging with other experienced
>>>>> OpenSolaris facilitators.
>>
>> This would be very valuable.
>
> Thanks Jim, for your complete response on this (snipped). You make an
> important point about core-contrib-discuss mailing list that I think we
> should talk about on the new project mailing list as we get started (a
> plan to use that list should be part of what we do).
>
> I'm really glad to have your participation in this project! We have our
> needed +1s from Valerie, John, myself and others, so please get us set
> up with the name 'facilitation', facilitation-discuss, etc. and let me
> know if you need anything else from me (cc'ing project-setup). Here is
> the final:
>
> The purpose of the Facilitation project is to bring together the 15-20
> active OpenSolaris Community Group Facilitators to learn from one
> another about the Facilitator role and to help increase voter
> turnout by communicating election details via the project team.
>
> Community Group Sponsor: OGB
>
> Participants: Michelle Olson is point-of-contact, potential participants
> include the following:
>
> David Chieu, Vincent R Wang, William Kucharski, Ceri Davies, Darren
> Moffat, Nicolas Solter, Liane Praza, Sunay Tripathi, Dan Price, Damian
> Wojslaw, Mark Nelson, Lisa Week, John Levon, Lynn Rohrer, Octave
> Orgeron, Alan Coopersmith, John Beck, Jim Grisanzio, Peter Tribble
> Alan McClellan and any other active CG facilitators I've missed.
*raises hand* I'm the facilitator for the Distribution CG.
Cheers,
--
Shawn Walker
_______________________________________________
ogb-discuss mailing list
ogb-discuss at opensolaris dot org
http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/ogb-discuss
|
|
|
|
|
Posts:
1,300
From:
US
Registered:
4/21/05
|
|
|
|
Re: [ogb-discuss] project proposal: Facilitation
Posted:
Apr 20, 2009 10:11 PM
in response to: michelle
|
|
Michelle Olson wrote:
> Community Group Sponsor: OGB
>
> Participants: Michelle Olson is point-of-contact, potential participants
> include the following:
>
> David Chieu, Vincent R Wang, William Kucharski, Ceri Davies, Darren
> Moffat, Nicolas Solter, Liane Praza, Sunay Tripathi, Dan Price, Damian
> Wojslaw, Mark Nelson, Lisa Week, John Levon, Lynn Rohrer, Octave
> Orgeron, Alan Coopersmith, John Beck, Jim Grisanzio, Peter Tribble
> Alan McClellan and any other active CG facilitators I've missed.
Put me down for Testing. Damian has SW Porters covered well :)
Cheers,
Jim
_______________________________________________
ogb-discuss mailing list
ogb-discuss at opensolaris dot org
http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/ogb-discuss
|
|
|
|
|
Posts:
3,835
From:
JP
Registered:
4/6/05
|
|
|
|
Re: [ogb-discuss] project proposal: Facilitation
Posted:
Apr 20, 2009 10:43 PM
in response to: michelle
|
|
On 04/21/09 06:44, Michelle Olson wrote:
> so please get us set up with the name 'facilitation',
> facilitation-discuss, etc. and let me know if you need anything else
> from me (cc'ing project-setup).
http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/facilitation-discuss
http://opensolaris.org/os/project/facilitation/
> Participants: Michelle Olson is point-of-contact, potential
> participants include the following:
>
> David Chieu, Vincent R Wang, William Kucharski, Ceri Davies, Darren
> Moffat, Nicolas Solter, Liane Praza, Sunay Tripathi, Dan Price, Damian
> Wojslaw, Mark Nelson, Lisa Week, John Levon, Lynn Rohrer, Octave
> Orgeron, Alan Coopersmith, John Beck, Jim Grisanzio, Peter Tribble
> Alan McClellan and any other active CG facilitators I've missed.
For these leads, please send me your user names off list and I'll add
you to the project. It takes too long to look up all these.
Jim
--
http://twitter.com/jimgris
_______________________________________________
ogb-discuss mailing list
ogb-discuss at opensolaris dot org
http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/ogb-discuss
|
|
|
|
|
