Hi Mike, Thanks for participating in the discussion.
On Sun, February 6, 2011 04:50, Mike Milinkovich wrote: > Mark also raised the point that " It also doesn't state where this > infrastructure comes from or who maintains it." I expect that the answer > is Oracle. But I think that putting this level of detail into the Bylaws > would be a mistake, as it is an execution matter not a governance rule. I guess I wasn't very clear explaining. My point is mainly that the governance bylaws should either explain how the community "owns" the processes, or if the community isn't really in control over the processes described, then it shouldn't be in the bylaws (since it will only lead to frustration that it might be something we think we control, but ultimately will be vetoed outside the normal processes.) Lets give a concrete example. We are in desperate need of a better bugtracker. What would the process be if someone volunteered to set one up? How would "control" be delegated to this volunteer, who gets to appoint the bug-masters, and how would the governance board accept or reject donations for hosting and/or machines for this purpose? If this is this a process that the community really controls, and we can come up with a process for doing that. Then infrastructure definitely needs to be mentioned in the bylaws. But if this isn't something controlled by the participants, but something dictated/controlled outside of the democratic process, then it is better to just leave it out (or codify that this isn't up for community participation). Cheers, Mark
