RE: [Ampu-dev] New site sections

[Stover, Michael]

Let me know if I blab too much - got nothing to do at work lately....

Another thought - Taskforce creation might be an activity that the system
supports in specific ways.  Rather than an administrator or a special type
of "solution", there could be Taskforce generators.  One type of Taskforce
generator sets up a private forum, and adds as members those voted to
participate.  This private forum becomes linked to the original public forum
by the system in this way.  I imagine there are other types of taskforces
that the system will need to support, and in any case, documents and
activities of a taskforce will need to be tracked by the system, so it seems
likely that we'll need such generators anyway.

-Mike

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Stover, Michael [mailto:address@hidden
> Sent: Wednesday, March 06, 2002 11:39 AM
> To: 'address@hidden'
> Subject: RE: [Ampu-dev] New site sections
> 
> 
> So whether private forums are used the way we approve of or 
> not is a matter
> of configuration. Gotcha.
> 
> However, it also brings up a point that if a public forum "decides" to
> initiate a new private forum, someone has to have the rights to do it.
> Either that, or it needs to be a special kind of "solution" 
> such that, if
> it's voted for, the system automatically creates the new 
> private forum.
> That sounds ugly, but the alternative is to have a forum 
> administrator that
> is trusted to carry out the wishes of the voters in the forum.
> 
> -Mike
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Lee Braiden [mailto:address@hidden
> > Sent: Wednesday, March 06, 2002 11:32 AM
> > To: AMPU Developers' List
> > Subject: RE: [Ampu-dev] New site sections
> > 
> > 
> > On Wed, 2002-03-06 at 16:12, Stover, Michael wrote:
> > > My thought was that only the Taskforce activities would 
> > need to be private.
> > > 
> > > [snip] In the public forum,
> > > an initiative is proposed (ie we need to make a bid for 
> > contract X).  In the
> > > forum itself, it is decided that the bid needs to be secret
> > >[snip]
> > > It's only for this particular
> > > decision.  So, there aren't private forums "sitting out 
> > there" unaccounted
> > > for, and becoming a member of a secret taskforce is a 
> matter of open
> > > discussion.
> > > 
> > > -Mike
> > 
> > No, no confusion there.  I understand the point you're 
> making, but I'm
> > just expanding the idea, to cover the full range of related 
> > scenarios. 
> > I'm a minimalist, so I try to look for a generic solution 
> > that will kill
> > lots of birds with one stone =).
> > 
> > What I'm thinking is that if we allow private use of the 
> > system at all,
> > then we should cover the entire concept of a corporation 
> which desires
> > none (or almost none) of it's internal work to be publicised in any
> > form.  I think it's a valid thing to allow, if a little 
> > unsavory, since
> > organisations do practice such things, and they do need to remain
> > involved in larger communities.  One thing's for sure, we 
> > won't get big
> > corporations to fully adopt the system's philosophy if we 
> exclude them
> > right at the beginning =)
> >  
> > -- 
> > Lee Braiden,
> > AMPU Team
> > 
> > "coding a better government"
> > http://www.freesoftware.fsf.org/ampu/
> > 
> > ICQ: 24346459
> > AIM: FallibleDragon
> > 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Ampu-dev mailing list
> address@hidden
> http://mail.freesoftware.fsf.org/mailman/listinfo/ampu-dev
>