Stephen Lau wrote:
> John Plocher wrote:
>> On Tue, Jan 20, 2009 at 2:13 PM, Stephen Lau <stevel at opensolaris.org>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Stephen Lau wrote:
>>> Here's my proposed statement:
>>>
>>
>> Trying to ignore the feelings of deja-vu, I'd like to play devil's
>> advocate and walk thru what the new constitution says we
>> should do:
>>
>> The new constitution says
>> 4. Dispute Resolution
>> 4.1 Disputes
>> Disputes are expected and encouraged to be resolved
>> within groups according to their normal documented
>> decision-making procedures. If a dispute can not be
>> resolved within a group or spreads between groups,
>> then any participant may ask the Governing Board to
>> mediate.
>>
>> Where does the OGB get jurisdiction in this issue?
>>
>> Is there a dispute that has not been resolved within the
>> website group? Has a dispute spread between groups?
>>
>> I think not. Rather, the group affected seems to have
>> done a reasonable job of resolving this issue without
>> having to get the Board formally involved.
>>
>> If anything, a note from the Board might be in order noting
>> that in this situation, when faced with a potentially disruptive
>> dispute, the system worked as desired.
>>
>> As long as the website community group is able to manage
>> its own affairs, aren't the implementation details of who was
>> to blame and why their behavior was or was not ... really
>> none of the Board's business?
>>
> Where this fails is when members of the community group won't speak
> out against their employer.
I confess... I'm still confused why this needs further discussion.
You've made it clear that you think the board needs to slap someone's
hand. What's not clear to me is what possible beneficial thing you
think might come of it.
The problem was resolved, an apology given, and a promise made by the
offender (who is speaking on Sun's behalf, IIUC) not to repeat it again.
What else do you hope to achieve? What further good can come of
anything that the OGB might do?
Look at it this way. There are either two cases:
a) Sun intentionally made changes without following the process, and
knew that it was not following the process when it did so.
or,
b) The change was made without understanding the process, or perhaps
without understanding the ramifications of bypassing the process.
As I see it, it doesn't matter which holds true; in the first case any
commentary the OGB might make will probably just be ignored by whatever
exec(s) blessed the action (except perhaps to drive whatever wedge might
exist between Sun execs and the community leadership still further). If
the second case is true, then whatever commentary the OGB might make at
this point would merely be redundant. (But still might also antagonize
Sun exec leadership.)
I believe that the dispute resolution process worked ... the dispute in
question was resolved. Whatever motives may or may not have been behind
the dispute are, IMO, immaterial.
Unless of course, your sole purpose is to antagonize Sun's leadership.
In which case, go ahead, but I hope (and trust) the board is wise enough
to see the folly in rabble rousing for it its own sake.
-- Garrett
>
> cheers,
> steve
>
> --
> stephen lau | stevel at opensolaris.org | www.whacked.net
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> _______________________________________________
> ogb-discuss mailing list
> ogb-discuss at opensolaris.org
> http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/ogb-discuss
>
