The comments received this week on the draft constitution have
resulted in the following proposed changes, which I would like to
apply after any discussion during Thursday's OGB meeting:
Preamble: Use "community"?
By webmink on September 24, 2009, at 1:08 am
Given that OpenSolaris is not a separate legal entity from Sun, I
think it would be better to say "community"
Introduction: Must also conform with Constitution
By webmink on September 24, 2009, at 1:21 am
In most cases the Constitution specifies basic parameters to which
these processes must conform. This should say "The OpenSolaris
Constitution must conform to the OpenSolaris Charter, and process
documents must confirm to the Charter asn to the Constitution."
Introduction: Shall
By webmink on September 24, 2009, at 1:09 am
Let's standardise on "shall" for normative statements and "may for
non-normative statements.
1.1: Can participants do this?
By ptribble on October 9, 2009, at 9:38 pm
Technically, do participants have the ability to do any of these
things? Or would we expect that only more senior roles can actually
modify the collective structure?
By plocher on October 13, 2009, at 11:13 pm
This should be "...how Leaders can ...".
1.2: Typo A
By webmink on September 24, 2009, at 1:14 am
Stray A
1.3: Shall
By webmink on September 24, 2009, at 10:57 pm
How about making this just say "shall" since this is non-negotiable
and the default is to use the process defined by the OGB?
1.4: Duplicate right?
By ptribble on October 9, 2009, at 9:41 pm
Isn't this paragraph duplicating material in the last paragraph of
this section? I suggest that this paragraph be removed, the last
paragraph in the section being amended if necessary. This would bring
the next paragraph forward, which has a bit more punch.
2.1.3: Choices
By webmink on September 24, 2009, at 1:25 am
Since the vote is an indication of choice rather than just opinion I
think this should say "choices"
2.1.3: Join or renew
By webmink on September 24, 2009, at 1:27 am
Just to be completely clear, we need to say that those who have
already joined but had their voting rights lapse need may not vote
either. So this should say "who join or renew"
3.1: Inconsistent
By webmink on September 24, 2009, at 1:29 am
Either remove the (7) or add a (4) after "four"
By plocher on September 24, 2009, at 7:16 pm
good catch. As per s3.4.1 and charter 1.0, the number should be
three (3) instead of four (4).
3.1: Move to preamble?
By ptribble on October 3, 2009, at 6:01 pm
While the use of shall may indicate this to be normative, the general
tone would fit much better into the preamble or an informative
section.
By carlsonj on October 8, 2009, at 8:50 pm
If it's not moved to the preamble, then what happens if the
board fails in one of those requirements? Is that cause for a
vote of no confidence in the OGB by the electorate?
By plocher on October 13, 2009, at 11:52 pm
I'll move it to the preamble, but expect another round of
wordsmithing to make the preamble flow nicely...
3.4.1: Physically signed?
By webmink on September 24, 2009, at 1:33 am
If this includes electronically confirmed it should say so, as this
sort of community crisis is just the kind where people nitpick over
details. say "must be demonstrably endorsed" or something.
3.4.1: And if not?
By webmink on September 24, 2009, at 1:34 am
If there is a "shall" there has to be a sanction. And at this stage in
the breakdown of the leadership, I think we're beyond sanctions. So I
think this needs to be a "should".
By carlsonj on October 8, 2009, at 8:47 pm
The obvious solution would be to go back to the previous state:
if a new election is not held within 45 days, then custody reverts
back to Sun to appoint a new temporary OGB. (Or, of course,
it may choose to give up.)
3.6: Still needs to have an advance notice period
By webmink on September 24, 2009, at 1:36 am
So say "publicly announced at least seven days before the first meeting"
3.6: Process document
By webmink on September 24, 2009, at 1:39 am
This needs to be of the same form as the rest of the process
documents. How about: "The Board will maintain an OGB Transparency
Policy governing private OGB discussions. The Policy shall ensure
closed sessions and confidential discussions are documented in an
appropriate and public way in a timely fashion."
3.8: In case of multiple Board members
By webmink on September 24, 2009, at 1:41 am
... who gets to chair? I suggest this becomes: "The Board may create
subcommittees as desired, each consisting of at least one Board member
and composed of people appointed by the Board. Subcommittees shall be
chaired by a Board member."
5.0: How should board oversight be included for constitutional ammendments
By plocher on September 24, 2009, at 1:02 am
The secretary is responsible for checking/certifying, but what things
would get the board involved? What are valid and invalid objections?
We don't want a hostile board to arbitrarily shoot down amendments
from the community while at the same time we don't want charter
violations either...
Re:How should board oversight be included
By webmink on September 24, 2009, at 1:06 am
I think it needs to be clear that the authority to deny an
amendment rests with a vote of the Board and not solely
with the Secretary.
By plocher on September 24, 2009, at 1:17 am
... and that the grounds for denial must be explicitly
related to things in the amendment that violate the charter.
By webmink on September 24, 2009, at 1:22 am
Agreed.
----
- John
