Thanks for the comments. Personal responses in-line. On Feb 5, 2009, at 06:50, Ben Rockwood wrote:
> Firstly, I personal believe that there should be some leading > statement or preamble on the document. What would it say? I find the text after the first heading sufficient, although I'd be interested in suggestions. > Secondly, I personally believe the tone of the document is far too > informal. It reads more like a README than a constitution. Can you explain why that's a problem? Clear, simple language accessible globally would seem a good thing. Or am I missing your point? > Regarding Section 1.1: > * Projects should be defined rather as "Working groups assembled to > collaborate on a distinct cause/effort." Projects may not involve > code repositories or integration tools, for example docs. Docs use repositories, don't they? Non-code groups are covered by the concept "communities". > > * Electorate should be defined rather as "A superset of the > community empowered to vote in elections." The current wording > wrongly suggests the electorate governs, rather than simply elect > the governors. The electorate governs through those elected, and additionally should form a community of reference for them. Thus I believe wording like that used is appropriate. > Regarding Section 1.2: > * The roles strike me as too generic. Can you identify in what way that needs correcting in your view? > Regarding Section 2.3: > * Special elections to "fill any vacancies on the board" seems to me > to contradict 3.4. I don't think it does. It specifies that vacancies are filled from the candidates at the previous election, and if there are none willing then thevacancies can be filled by a special election. > Regarding 3.1: > * With respect, the section seems generic and flimsy. It ascribes > no real power to the OGB. "help mediate disputes" seems an option > rather than requirement... thus if a dispute arose and the involved > parties rejected OGB intervention I see no reason the constitution > should allow the OGB to intercede. What is missing, in your view? > Regarding 3.4.1: > * This should be entitled "OGB Dissolution", rather than Community. I agree, this section needs a new title. > Regarding 3.8: > * There are no bounds put around committees, nor power given to them. Board committees can indeed do anything the Board chooses within the scope of its remit. I'd hope the result will be broader participation in governance by the creation of a Committee whenever a significant task is needed, rather than assuming the OGB can do it all. > Regarding 4.1: > * Again, as with 3.1, there is no word that the board can intervene, > only that it can if asked. Yes. Is that a problem? Why should anyone intervene in a matter until it reaches the point where the group involved requests intervention? > Furthermore, the resolution it provides is not binding. No, the statement "If the Board chooses to mediate, it will resolve the issue at its absolute discretion." indicates that the OGB has binding and final authority in the case that it is invited to intervene and chooses to do so. > Regarding 4.2: > * This seems needless, excessive, and dangerious. "violates the > Community's norms"? That's very scary. Would you propose dropping the whole of section 4.2? I might agree with that. > === > > In regards to the whole: > * The document does not describe the rights or responsibilities of > anyone or anything. Further, I do not see sufficient power > delegated to anyone. Whereas the current constitution is lacking is > definition of power, this draft is completely bereft of it. > (bordering on violation of 2.4 of the Charter) What powers would you envisage being added? The thrust is on describing the collection of self-governed groups that OpenSolaris has evolved into. > > * The Charter states that the constitution shall describe the > "intended methods of communication between the OGB and Sun"... this > document does not. I agree, the Charter needs revision and we'll need to arrange that if the Constitution is adopted. > > * Again, the tone is excessively informal. > > > As I have historically, so do I also now, believe in a strong OGB > and a strong constitution. I do not believe that this draft > establishes either. Furthermore, I see no advantages in this new > document as opposed to the existing. I believe this document reflects the actual operational nature of the OpenSolaris community as it exists today and thus is much better than the existing constitution. It clears away ideas and structures that turned out to be inappropriate and makes clear that the OGB's role is to facilitate. Thanks for the helpful comments, interested in your further responses. S.
