Stephen Lau wrote:
> Garrett D'Amore wrote:
>> A strongly worded mandate would be better than remaining quiet on
>> it. Ultimately, the tools we need to manage code commits must be
>> openly available. One thing OGB can do is form a task group or
>> committee to work on addressing this need if it appears that a
>> resolution on the Sun internal tool is not forthcoming.
>> An OGB that is completely impotent to enact or enforce anything is
>> not terribly useful, and I think it would be good for all involved if
>> the OGB became a little more proactive versus reactive. (In other
>> words, I think we ... by that I mean myself and I believe many other
>> members of the community ... expect OGB to fill more than just a
>> judicial role for the community at large.)
>>
> The charter and the constitution are seemingly at odds here. The
> charter leaves a fairly broad view (IMHO) for what the OGB's role and
> responsibilities are, in other words: a more proactive role. The
> constitution that the community voted into place pretty strictly
> defines the OGB's role as a reactive/judicial role, and the OGB - for
> better or for worse - has stood by that measure so far this term.
If the constitution is limiting the OGB, and no other proactive body
fills the need, then perhaps we need an amendment to create or empower
such a body.
Loosely organized anarchy is not helpful to the project, IMO, and the
total absence of governed power may wind up leaving one more
contributors to fill that power vacuum as it sees fit. While some might
argue this isn't necessarily a bad thing, I don't believe it is quite
what most of the membership were looking to either.
-- Garrett
