ontology-summit
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [ontology-summit] Distributed Governance model

To: Ontology Summit 2008 <ontology-summit@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
From: Farrukh Najmi <farrukh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Fri, 21 Mar 2008 16:48:22 -0400
Message-id: <47E41F16.80109@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
John F. Sowa wrote:
> Farrukh, Fabian, and Barry,
>
> There are many different models that we should consider, but it's
> not likely that any single model could be adopted as is.      (01)

+1 I never intended to imply that. What I said is to study existing 
wikpedia model as a starting point.    (02)

> For
> example, Wikipedia has strong guidelines, but they permit anybody
> to modify any article.      (03)

I think we should first define roles (actors) and actions and finally 
describe a set of policies as to which roles are allowed to perform
what actions under what circumstances.    (04)

For example, I can see the following roles. Note indentation implies 
specialization or sub-classing.    (05)

    * Guest - Unregistered User who has readonly priviliges
    * Registered User - Has WRITE privileges within their own node. What
      they author is a Submitted state but not an Approved state
          o Reviewer - May review and mark as "Approved" any content in
            their own node
          o LeadReviewer - A designated leader of all reviewers who
            serves to arbitrate any conflicts. She is also a Reviewer in
            root OOR
          o Administrator - Has superuser priviliges within their own
            node. May modify or delete any content in their own node.
            Responsible for uploading approved content to root OOR node    (06)



> Sourceforge has looser controls, but only
>       (07)

SourceForge (SF) is more like the root OOR while a SourceForge project 
is like a sub-OOR.
Note that SourceForge policies for most part simply decide whether a 
project should be approved for SourceForge or not.
Once a project is approved it is largely able to do just about anything 
within some limited boundaries such as resource
utilization etc.    (08)

> the steward of a resource has the right to modify its web site.
>
> A comparative study of the pros and cons would be important.
>       (09)

For the root OOR I see similarities with SF in that root OOR governing 
board would decide which sub-communities will be accepted.
However, I also see similarities with Wikipedia that once accepted, 
registered users from a community may upload whatever they see fit
through their Administrator. Whether that content gets approved or not 
is upto the Reviewers of root OOR (of which the LeadReviewer of
sub-community is a member). Whether unapproved content is visible to 
general public or not could be a policy decision. I favour allowing it
to be visible on demand (say through a UI switch).    (010)

-- 
Regards,
Farrukh Najmi    (011)

Web: http://www.wellfleetsoftware.com    (012)



_________________________________________________________________
Msg Archives: http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/ontology-summit/ 
Subscribe/Config: http://ontolog.cim3.net/mailman/listinfo/ontology-summit/  
Unsubscribe: mailto:ontology-summit-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Community Files: http://ontolog.cim3.net/file/work/OntologySummit2008/
Community Wiki: http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?OntologySummit2008 
Community Portal: http://ontolog.cim3.net/    (013)
<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>