On Sun, 5 Apr 2009, Peter Tribble wrote: > [Splitting this up to cover individual policies.] > > On Sat, Apr 4, 2009 at 4:10 PM, John Plocher <john.plocher at gmail.com> > wrote: >> On Fri, Apr 3, 2009 at 1:50 PM, Michelle Olson <michelle.olson at sun.com> >> wrote: >>>> * OGB 2008/001 Statement of the OGB class of 2008's "can-do" >>>> attitude and approach to governance >>> >>> I think we should rescind this policy >> >> Why? Has our attitude changed? What parts of >> We value openness and transparency, >> we prefer delegation and empowerment, >> we will strive to be enablers, facilitators and behind-the-scenes >> troubleshooters, and >> we intend to focus on making things work and getting things done >> >> no longer applies? Are you saying we don't want to be open and >> transparent? We won't delegate or empower? We would rather nobody >> else did anything because we 7 could do it better? That we'd rather >> talk and argue rather than do? >> >>> My very first draft of such a mission statement is as follows: >>> >>> Our mission is to enable OpenSolaris contributors to participate more >>> independently, >> >> What actionable items can the OGB do as an OGB to make this happen? >> What roadblocks exist that the 7 of us can remove with our OGB hats >> on? Other than the constitution cleanup, everything I can think of is >> the responsibility of some other OS.o community or other, which is as >> it should be. The fact that we may also be members of those other >> communities doesn't mean we can hijack the OGB to become an extension >> of those communities or make it into a bully pulpit - the OGB works >> best when it empowers others to do things, it fails the most when it >> tries to force people to do things the OGB's way. >> >>> track and manage the bugs they file and fix more efficiently, >> >> Not the purview of the OGB. I wish it was, but AlanB has told us many >> times that the webapp, bugtracker, source control... stuff is all >> controlled by Bonnie's group and maybe the website and tools >> communities, not the OGB. >> >>> access and contribute the software they need more readily, >> >> Again, this is where Projects and Community Groups come into play - >> *they* do those things, not the OGB. The OGB can help make it easier >> to create new projects and CGs, but the day to day operation of them >> once created is not under our control. >> >>> document their projects more effectively >> >> ... Sounds like the docs community, not the OGB, unless the docs >> community is dysfunctional and feuding with others, at which point the >> OGB gets to step in... >> >>> and provide a place to ask questions and promote >>> their contributions. >> >> Asking questions about what? The OGB isn't the right forum to ask >> questions about general opensolaris code, tools, website, packaging, >> zones, zfs, drivers, distros, user groups, ... ... ... . We also >> don't do contributions, we aren't the advocacy CG, we aren't >> OpenSolaris Marketing... We only do governance, and, of course, >> governance related questions *are* the right thing to bring to the >> OGB. > > I agree with John. As such, I've drafted 2009/001 > > http://wiki.genunix.org/wiki/index.php/OGB_2009/001 > > which is essentially a copy of 2008/001, because I believe the > values expressed there are good. > > This expresses our philosophy, how we go about things, not what we > intend to do. > > I've added an extra phrase to provoke discussion. Because I believe the OGB > has to become more visible and more proactive: > > "We will be more prominent as advocates of our community and its > values, both to those inside our community and those outside it."
I like it. Thank you! Valerie -- Valerie Fenwick, http://blogs.sun.com/bubbva Solaris Security Technologies, Developer, Sun Microsystems, Inc. 17 Network Circle, Menlo Park, CA, 94025.
