User talk:TerryE/Draft Constitution2

From Apache OpenOffice Wiki
Revision as of 06:26, 6 September 2007 by DrewJensen (Talk | contribs)

Jump to: navigation, search

Role of Ombudsman

I have a question about this "Overseer" role. Where do they come from and how are they selected?

They are elected by the members of the management group from among their own number. DJ makes the point that the members of the group can act as overseers. As long as they have access to records and their availability for that task is made known, I agree.

Establishing the charter and group

Regarding the section 'Date' and the question who will vote this in.

IMO, it is the same group of people as those currently registered at the private forum. Regarding that, the PM I sent out the other day garnered a number of PM and direct emails to me. Counting the folks that are actively discussing the issues on the forum and the PM / emails we now have 13 of the 19 individuals ( names suppled to me from James ) as voicing an agreement that we move forward with this.

I would perhaps include in the charter, as an amendment perhaps the names of the first board, and admins. Then send another PM to the group ( perhaps grown now, so need new list from James ) for approval. Perhaps call this the interim board, and setup a full vote by the members say 3 or 6 months hence to ratify this initial vote?

--- new post [by a person who is much better informed :wink:]

admins and moderators will be known by their forum names. Those are not names you'd normally use in a charter. If the board or one of its executives / directors has responsibility for appointing forum officers, it's a simple matter of adding them to the appropriate groups and making sure they have the benefit of the permissions they need.

Preferably, there should be formal records of appointments.

athos 06:56, 6 September 2007 (CEST)

testing that nowiki code: ~~~~

Merging the streams

I have merged the streams, but have not addressed Drew's question about Admins and Mods I think these folks will answer to the Dir of IT and the Dir of Content respectively. Security hackers or checkers, such as me would answer to the President or Chair. Best practice of not putting the CSO under the CIO.

Yes, of course, everybody can talk to anybody about anything, because we are really all friends here. This must be maintained or much of the fun will drain out.

-Wolf Saphil 16:48, 5 September 2007 (CEST)

Wolf, if you add ~~~~ to your post you will see that this resolves to a signature — TerryE 03:58, 5 September 2007 (CEST)

A fresh look is required, I think. Perhaps Drew could ask his friend Alex to make the final decision. After all, Sun wants this signed and sealed in time for the Conference. Odd that Sun should be the one doing the hurrying.

The site page about content should not be in the charter.

Submit to the legal eagle - yes?

athos 06:36, 6 September 2007 (CEST)

Membership of the group

I think that anyone who is registered on the site is eligible to join the group, but we should have some sort of election / selection process to eliminate SPAM entrants. TerryE 04:42, 5 September 2007 (CEST)

It would be like any other (forum) group. You apply to join. The (forum) administrator presumably has to admit you and can check your credentials when doing so. A similar procedure to the formation of the user group on 8daysaweek.

athos 06:51, 6 September 2007 (CEST)

Content of the Site

I feel that we need a statement that all content of the site should be made under GPL OD licence. The constition should state this and therefore "Decisions on access to records of decisions of the board by persons other than ombudsmen shall be made by the board." is in conflict with this. All decisions should be public. — TerryE 05:00, 5 September 2007 (CEST)

GPL-ing. This is a great idea, however a copyright might be wiser. Don't really want to give editing rights to official proceedings, but do want to make it very accessible.
Saphil 16:50, 5 September 2007 (CEST)
There is a difference between open access and right to plagiarise and that of fraudulently re-editing. We prevent the second by signing agreed minutes — TerryE 02:14, 6 September 2007 (CEST)
Minutes made available to the public on a locked forum seems plenty secure enough. Someone is designated the scribe and maintains the postings, the attendees / participants have a chance to verify the accuracy. Seems simple enough
@Drew 08:22, 6 September 2007 (CEST)

Licensing for the overall site content? What would you think of the Creative Commons Attribution license. See for reference looking at the human readable page might be a bit misleading, you need to have a peek at the actual text, legalize.
@Drew 08:22, 6 September 2007 (CEST)

From the oo.o site use page


4. THINGS YOU SUBMIT TO THE SITE. This Site offers many opportunities for You to contribute Materials to the community on this Site. In addition to the other terms found here, the following terms apply to any Submissions made by You ("Your Submissions").

a. You Take Responsibility for Your Submissions. You warrant that You have all rights needed to provide Your Submissions to the Hosts for posting to the Site in accordance with these Terms and to grant the licenses set forth in sections 4.b and 4.c. You agree that You will make all reasonable efforts to ensure that Your Submissions: (i) do not infringe, misappropriate or violate the intellectual property rights or privacy interests of others; (ii) are not confidential or trade secret information, or subject to Your privacy interests; (iii) are not inaccurate, harmful, obscene, pornographic, defamatory, racist, or otherwise objectionable to a reasonable User; (iv) do not violate any law, ordinance, or regulation of any country, state or locality. YOU AGREE THAT YOU, AND NOT THE HOSTS, ARE FULLY RESPONSIBLE FOR YOUR SUBMISSIONS AND THAT YOU, AND NOT THE HOSTS, ARE LIABLE FOR ANY AND ALL CLAIMS ARISING OUT OF THEM.

b. Source Code Submissions. You agree that any source code You contribute to a Project will be submitted under, and subject to, the license posted for that Project. If no license is posted, You agree that Your Submission will be governed by the New BSD License, which terms can be found at [2]. To the extent there is a conflict between those licenses (including the New BSD License) and these Terms, those licenses will take precedence over these Terms, and you agree to be bound accordingly. You acknowledge that You are responsible for including all applicable copyright notices and licenses with Your Submissions, and that You assume the risks of failing to do so, including the potential loss of Your rights to Your Submissions. This gives people the right to put hard-copyrighted blogs on the site and we have plausible deniability

c. Other Submissions. This Section 4.c applies to all Submissions other than source code Submissions contributed to a Project. The Hosts do not claim ownership of Your Submissions. However, in order to fulfill the purposes of this Site, You must give the Hosts and all Users the right to post, access, evaluate, discuss, publish, disseminate and refine Your Submissions. In legalese: You hereby grant to the Hosts and all Users a royalty-free, perpetual, irrevocable, worldwide, non-exclusive and fully sub-licensable right and license under Your intellectual property rights to reproduce, modify, adapt, publish, translate, create derivative works from, distribute, perform, display and use Your Submissions (in whole or part) and to incorporate it in other works in any form, media, or technology now known or later developed, all subject to the obligation to retain any copyright notices included in Your Submissions. All Users, the Hosts, and their sublicensees are responsible for any modifications they make to the Submissions of others.

i. Private Projects. With respect to a Project that is designated as "Private," the preceding license is limited to Users who have access to the Project, and such rights may only be sublicensed to other Users with authorized access to the Project.

d. Moral Rights. You agree that with respect to any "moral" or equivalent rights (including, without limitation, rights of attribution, integrity, disclosure, and withdrawal) You hereby: (i) assign such rights to Hosts, (ii) waive such rights and (iii) agree never to assert such rights or to institute or maintain any action against Hosts relative to any such rights in Your Submissions. To the extent that such rights cannot be assigned or waived by operation of law, You grant to Hosts, a royalty-free, perpetual, irrevocable and worldwide license to fully exercise all such rights akin to ownership, with rights to sublicense through multiple levels of sublicensees and further, You consent to Host's use sufficient to allow Hosts to exercise the rights granted herein.

e. Projects May Have Other Contributor Agreements. Some Projects are governed by their own terms regarding Submissions and may require You to sign an agreement (such as a Contributor Agreement) assigning and/or licensing Your rights in Your Submissions. In all such cases, and to the extent there is a conflict, the terms of those Projects' agreements take precedence over these Terms, including without limitation Sections 4b. and 4c.

f. Privacy. You consent to the collection, processing and storage by the Hosts of any personal information provided by You in accordance with the terms of Sun's Privacy Policy, which is available at You agree to comply with all applicable laws and regulations, and the terms of Sun's Privacy Policy, with respect to any use by You of any personal information in connection with this Site. Notwithstanding anything to the contrary, if you choose to participate in an open source or community source process on this Website - whether by contributing code, participating in mailing lists, signing a contributor agreement or sending an e-mail - your participation is public and your privacy cannot be protected to the extent that you provide personal information such as your e-mail address, username or full name. To the extent that you contribute code, information, articles or other material to this Website containing personal information, the Hosts cannot protect the privacy of such personal information and such material may be provided to others under the Terms of Use, contributor agreement and/or applicable licenses. Saphil 17:18, 5 September 2007 (CEST)

The Roll Hierarchy seems too complicated

The constitution current defines:

  • the group
  • the site
  • volunteer
  • (anyone registered with the site)
  • (founding members)
  • officers
  • executive
  • the board
  • the ombudsman or (is it ombudsmen)
  • the Governor
  • the President of the Group (who may not be the Governor)
  • the Director of IT
  • the Director of Publicity
  • Director of Funding
  • Director of Content
  • Ombudsman's Office.

This seems awfully convolved, and it isn't at all clear who is actually responsible for what; when can general members flex their muscles and in what way; and to what level can the executives ignore them.

I think we need to start off with: the site, registered member, volunteer, founding volunteer, executive, ombudsman. After that I run out of steam, but being pragmatic I think that we should also differentiate the roles: guest, registered member, moderator, administrator, system administrator.

I feel that we should acknowledge that in the first 6-12 months we are in foundation phase, where we will unilaterally resolving catch-22s and therefore have start-up appointments but beyond that being a founding member confers absolutely no rights in itself.

TerryE 02:46, 6 September 2007 (CEST)

I think we've ended up with some duplications because of the merger. I see 3 board members as plenty but, hey, 5 is a good number 2. I see the board appointing other officers and also deciding who on the board does what. The less detail in the charter, the more freedom and flexibility.

Oversight by the volunteers generally would occur by two of them calling a poll on some matter. Surely the management group should have its own area in the forum for discussion of issues that arise from time to time. I believe in keeping things as informal as possible initially because experience will teach the team what works best.

~~~~athos 06:19, 6 September 2007 (CEST)~~~~

Regarding Volunteers and Founding Volunteers: I don't really see any need for this distinction. Drew 07:34, 6 September 2007 (CEST)

--- [new post] There is no need. The charter is enacted by the founding members of the site. Those are they who reply to your email and vote 'yes' to the charter and the hosting arrangement.

The charter needs to say that at the same time as its adoption, the founding members elect individually whether to join the volunteers group.

The volunteers group (once established) elects its board consisting of executives / directors. Alternatively, the founding members decide the first board at the same time as adopting the charter and the hosting arrangement.

The directors appoint the webmasters, forum administrators and moderators.

That's it. I'd leave it to the directors to decide how they divide responsibilities amongst themselves. In the absence of division, they must decide by majority vote amongst themselves.

I agree with you (DJ) that we don't need an overseer / Ombudsman. The latter term is overblown for a website management situation.

Thereafter, the board or any director can call a poll. Any two or more volunteers can jointly call a poll.

The volunteers have right of access to all records and information and are the only persons who may be appointed to any site office.

~~~~ athos 07:46, 6 September 2007 (CEST) ~~~~

Personal tools