On 2011-02-05 13:56, Mark Wielaard wrote:
Or as someone said less politely, without addressing all issues, you are
> just setting up some nice rules for working in the sweat-shop.
Seriously, if you are not addressing these things, please
at least document the rational for not addressing these issue.
And who is responsible for them if not the community of participants
nor the governance board.
I specifically refrained from commenting on this one in my initial
feedback since I wanted to get a clarification first on the rules
surrounding objections made by the board members. My hope was that this
objection power might act as a last resort should the OpenJDK Lead make
harmful decisions regarding the product.
However since I haven't gotten a response on that yet, I'll echo your
concern that the document currently reads as a lot of flowery words for
a community with no say what so ever over OpenJDK. You might as well
draw a razor over the document and divide it in two parts. One part for
people who like to talk about OpenJDK or execute the orders from the
OpenJDK Lead ("the community") and another part for the OpenJDK Lead
which has a single sentence "This role decides everything concerning
OpenJDK such as technical direction, features and release schedules. Oh
and by the way, the role is always to be appointed by Oracle.".
I don't see much openness about this JDK under the proposed construct.
The Governing Board consists of �ve individuals:
* The Chair, appointed by Oracle;
* The Vice-Chair, appointed by IBM;
* The OpenJDK Lead, appointed by Oracle; and
* Two At-Large Members, nominated and elected as described below.
Killing votes goes both ways.
I just object to the appointed part.
Another thing I refrained from commenting on since I figured that if
either Oracle or IBM started pulling in their own direction, then they
would have to sell (through logic or "other means") the At-Large members
on the idea, which hopefully would serve as a containment mechanism for
some of the company agendas.
Though, I am concerned that specific companies are written into the
bylaws. Wouldn't it be better to simply prop the roles with Oracle and
IBM people when the bylaws take effect and then let people on the board
earn their right to be there like the other groups? (ahm.. meritocracy
someone said)
Looking elsewhere, the Eclipse foundation has so far managed to keep
their product alive without having IBM, Nokia or other specific
companies written into their bylaws.
