public? Re: Call for Votes: New OSI-Editors List

[Zak Greant]

Hi Ernie, Greetings All,

On 11/27/07, Ernest Prabhakar <ernest.prabhakar at gmail.com> wrote:
...
> Zak, could you perhaps start a wiki page for editor responsibilities,
> so we can start writing these down?

Rough notes at:
  https://osi.osuosl.org/wiki/handbook/editor

... the text of which follows:

= The OSI Editor's Handbook =

== Role ==

The OSI editor role exists to help ensure that public input on OSI
issues is collected, acknowledged, addressed and archived.

It is primarily an administrative, ombuds and service role - rather
than making policy, editors focus on helping good and representative
policy to be made.

Another key focus of the role is helping involved parties follow the
correct processes and ensuring that community concerns are addressed.

In their role as editors, editors do not raise issues or give input on
the issues. If an editor has an issue to raise or input to give as an
individual, then they may not act as an editor for the relevant issue.

== Goals ==

Editors seek to make the discussion on OSI issues accessible and transparent.

== Conduct ==

When acting in the role of editor, editors will be civil, concise and impartial.

Editors who cannot follow these guidelines will be relieved from their duties.


== Duties ==

Editors have three major duties:
 * triaging issues
 * maintaining the archives (which include things like the FAQ,
opinions on licenses, etc.)
 * shepherding the public OSI processes

== The OSI Editor's Mailing List ==

There will be a mailing list for the OSI editors. Posting to this list
will be restricted to members, but subscription and the list archives
will be public.

The list is where editors will discuss issues such as maintaining the
tools that they use, how to best use the tools, task distribution and
so on. All other substantive issues, ranging from discussions on
changing the editors role and nominations for new editors to new FAQ
entries and issues to ticket, should happen on the public discussion
lists.

For example, if someone believes that there should be a new FAQ entry,
the request for this should not be posted to the editor's list or be
sent directly to an individual editor.  Instead, the request should go
to the list where the people most interested in the topic are
subscribed. The editors will notice the issue and triage it.

If this process is not followed, the editors will move from their
desired role as administrators and facilitators to the undesired role
of gatekeeper and governor.


-- 
Cheers!
--zak