"Garrett D'Amore" <gdamore at sun.com> writes: > Alan Coopersmith wrote: >> Garrett D'Amore wrote: >> >>> And indeed, the one good thing about Sun here is that it already has a >>> history of allowing employees to speak their minds, at least internally, >>> in ways that may be unpopular with the senior management. >>> >> >> *Internally* is much different than out here where it can be picked up >> and reported within minutes on the Register, Slashdot or CNet and used >> by Sun's competitors to spread FUD. >> >> >>> What I do hope that Sun understands is that the OGB is a >>> community-elected body, and is answerable (in their OGB duties) to the >>> community. >>> >> >> Sun management has been clear recently that while they expect us to >> represent the community, we don't get to take off our Sun employee >> hats when the OGB meeting starts and take actions that are not in >> the best interest of our employer, so need to try to find ways to >> advance the community without hurting Sun - which in many cases is >> reasonable for a community that is still incredibly dependent on Sun's >> resources. >> >> Fortunately, none of us have fallen off that tightrope yet to find out >> if there's a net below or not, but we're all walking it very very carefully. >> >> To be clear - I'm not saying this to complain or publicly shame Sun in any >> way, just to make sure that any Sun employee who plans to run for the OGB in >> a few months goes into it with their eyes open to the reality, since I >> know I was naive here when I was elected. >> > > This is good information. My manager recently reminded me that Sun > requires (as part of our employment contract and standards of business > conduct) employees serving on external boards to notify Sun... and in > cases where the board's activities overlap with Sun's interests, I think > Sun's permission may be required to serve, and disciplinary action up to > and including termination of employment could result. There is a > process by which Sun can request employees to represent it on external > boards, as well. > > This strongly suggests to me that it is impossible for any Sun candidate > to remain truly unbiased, no matter how much he or she might want to. > Therefore, I would encourage folks contemplating the next election to > consider: > > 1) Sun employees should be considered to represent Sun's interests. > > 2) The only exception to this would be if Sun granted a candidate > some kind of blanket indemnification. (I.e. an explicit relaxation of > Sun's interests.) Such an indemnification would need to come from an > executive management at Sun. > > 3) Given the above, I think Sun needs to consider paying those it > wishes to see on the board to perform this work. > > 4) We desperately need to have more non-Sun community members on the > board. > > Given all this, I do not anticipate running myself, unless one of the > following occurs: > > a) The waiver mentioned in #2 is granted to me, to act on my own > without recourse to Sun if I were to vote in a way contrary to Sun's > interests. > b) I am asked by my management to run (and potentially serve) as > part of my official job capacity. In which case I will expect to be > paid for my time, and I will be explicit in stating that I'm serving as > part of my Sun duties. > > At the end of the day, I still believe Sun's interests and the > community's interests are quite closely aligned. So having Sun > employees serve on the board seems quite reasonable to me. But I think > we need to understand that it may be impossible for Sun employees to act > impartially. I find this unfortunate, but not entirely unreasonable. >
So, did anyone talk to Bill Franklin about any of the above? It seems important to me that we know whether every Sun person has to act as "Sun" for this purpose, or if they are actually individuals with free will. If nobody *has* asked, I would like to ask the OGB to approach Mr. Franklin on that topic, and tell us exactly where both we stand and Sun employees serving or wishing to serve on the OGB stand. -- Rich
