Roy T. Fielding wrote: > On Jan 23, 2008, at 10:24 PM, Ben Rockwood wrote: >> Garrett D'Amore wrote: >>> Such a position would severely constrain the OGB's interactions with >>> other bodies, and may ultimately destroy its ability to act >>> effectively. >>> >>> Sometimes discussions with 3rd parties *have* to be private, and if >>> you're not willing to have the discussions in private, then the other >>> parties will just refuse to talk to you. Sometimes the 3rd party here >>> will be Sun. Sometimes it might be other organizations, such as >>> security organizations (CERT), or other vendors who are contemplating >>> opening up to Solaris, but aren't yet ready to disclose those plans to >>> the world-at-large. >> >> No.... 3rd parties do not have to be private. If they do, they can go >> elsewhere. OPENsolaris. OPEN source. OPEN! We can't do things >> otherwise, and if we do we are doomed to be a sham. CLOSEDsolaris is >> dead, OPENsolaris is the future. >> >> This stabs at the heart of whats wrong with the relationship between Sun >> and the community... we don't do closed, we don't do private. > > Ben, that is a fantasy. Every single open source foundation > has private lists. Boards always have private discussions. > Legal discussions must be private to protect attorney-client privs. > One of the main purposes of having a board is to enable a small > group to do what cannot be done on big mailing lists. > > Besides, we don't do closed. We don't "do" much of anything at the > moment. Focus should be placed on "doing" stuff in the open, like > forcing the gates into the open, not all of the OGB's discussions. > I like your energy, but I think this proposal is the wrong tree. > >> Good or bad. Right or wrong. For better or worse. OPEN. Thats what >> transparency is, and thats what this board must be. > > Transparency is about making DECISIONS in public. Discussion often > includes items for which each of the OGB members might be sued if they > occurred in a public list. That is why boards always have at least > some private discussions. The OGB is transparent because it is required > to make decisions in public, not have all discussions in public. > > Sun, in particular, is a publicly traded company. There are some > discussions that they must have with the OGB before an announcement > to the public (e.g., anything that amounts to tentative plans to > make some piece of revenue-generating software open source). If the > OGB does not have a private list, then they will have to make private > telephone calls or string large address lists together. This is not > a matter of choice -- the SEC has rules that must be obeyed. If the > OGB can only discuss in public, then no private matter will ever be > discussed with the OGB. It will not be governing OpenSolaris at all. > It will be limited to reacting to other organization's announcements.
Well said. Thank you Roy. :) benr.
