Hey,
Here's meeting minutes from the OGB call on the 14th November.
Glynn
==
OGB Meeting Minutes 14th November 2008
OGB Members: Carlson, Coopersmith, Dik, Foster, Lau, Teer, Wesolowski
Others: John Plocher, Ben Rockwood
1) Meeting Times
Teer asked if a change of time for the regular meetings would be possible
due to an overlap with another meeting he needs to attend at work.
ACTION: All to send meeting times that would be available to ogb-private
in an attempt to find a good time for the meeting.
2) Ben Rockwood's Status Report and Roadmap Request
Ben asked for a confirmation of the minutes from the meetings, a summary
of current and past motions brought to the OGB, and a roadmap for
future work. The OGB have responded to some of these issues by e-mail.
Foster commented that he still had a bit of work in making sure the links
to the latest minutes were up to date.
ACTION: Foster to update the list of meeting minutes on opensolaris.org to
make sure they are all up to date.
Plocher commented that the OGB was poorly organized on opensolaris.org, and
there are a number of broken links between the OGB and CAB community sites.
Plocher asked if the broken links could be fixed.
ACTION: Foster to make sure some of the web links are working properly.
Wesolowski commented that he expected that the first 3 items on Ben's list
were covered by the meeting minutes. Plocher commented that future motions
would be covered in the agenda. Foster commented that he was planning on
doing a board summary for the end of the year that might list and detail
some of the activities.
Teer commented that the OGB currently has been reactive rather than
pro-active so far, and that's why there isn't a current roadmap. Plocher
commented that if and when committees are charted by the OGB as necessary,
it would satisfy Ben's point.
3) Roy Fielding's Proposal for Dissolving the Desktop Community
Lau commented that he thought it was unfair to single out the desktop
Community Group given there are multiple Community Groups sponsoring the
Indiana project, most notably the install Community Group. Foster
commented that it just highlights the fact that some project teams are
working outside their respective Community Groups that endorse them, and
doesn't necessary see it as a terrible thing. Coopersmith proposed that
Indiana project consider forming their own Community Group so that they
can start naming Contributors and Core Contributors and holding community
votes. Teer thought that dissolving the desktop Community Group would be
an over zealous response, but commented that having their own community
might be a good idea.
Wesolowski commented that there were 4 courses of action; dissolve it,
restructure it, provide advice or do nothing. He suggested that the
debate currently revolved around either restructuring it, or providing
advice. Wesolowski commented that restructuring a Community Group wasn't
an indication of punishment of doing something wrong, but more an
acknowledgment that the current structure didn't accurately reflect the
way people want things to work. Plocher asked if this was being treated
uniquely compared to the previous Community Group restructuring work, and
commented that this proposal had come from an individual and not the
community themselves. Wesolowski commented that the reason for why the
previous efforts fell through was that the proposals turned out to be
exactly opposite to what the stakeholders wanted, but ultimately the OGB
came out with a better view of how people wanted things to be structured.
Carlson offered a motion to vote to take no action on Fielding's
proposal. Lau seconded.
Yes: Coopersmith, Carlson, Dik, Foster, Lau
No: Wesolowski, Teer
The motion is carried and Fielding's proposal is denied.
4) John Plocher's Proposal for Creating a Website Editorial Board
Foster commented that at least 2 communities would be suitable - advocacy
and website. Lau corrected that website isn't actually a community, but
a project and more involved in website technical infrastructure rather
than content. Plocher commented that the reason he came up with the
proposal was because there was a sufficient level of confusion about
where the buck stopped, and wanted to nail down something, though he
thought that the current people involved should still be involved.
Plocher commented that Sun's involvement with the OpenSolaris community
with respect to the home page is as yet undefined. Wesolowski replied
that if that was the case, then maybe the discussion is best postponed
until that is resolved. Lau commented that there was a website-content
mailing list spawned from discussions during the summit, however it
wasn't formalized which community group or project owned it.
Wesolowski commented that it would be a good opportunity to take an
initiative to form a community, involving the advocacy Community Group
or otherwise. Teer commented that it would be good to do this, given that
he didn't see the resolution of Sun's involvement in the OpenSolaris
community as being a short term thing, and that a committee would be
good to have in the short term even if it had to be changed at a later
stage.
Wesolowski asked for a motion to amend the current motion, with a
committee formed of 5 persons, 2 of who are to be OGB members, 3
non-OGB members and all 5 to be appointed by the OGB chair. He
added that this committee would be formed to approve editorial
changes to the content and commentary of the site, but explicitly
exclude infrastructure and the underpinnings of the website application.
Yes: Coopersmith, Dik, Carlson, Foster, Lau, Teer, Wesolowski
ACTION: Teer to start a discussion on the appropriate mailing lists
about who might be suitable to be on the editorial committee.
5) Ben Rockwood's Proposed Naming Convention
No OGB member made a motion to bring this proposal for discussion at this
time.
6) Trademark and Branding
Plocher commented there has been a lot of discussion around trademark and
branding, and a strong desire to resolve this open question. He asked for
suggestions or advice about what mechanism or forum was there to do this.
Wesolowski suggested thinking about a number of separate questions - what
sort of trademark policy should exist, whether there should be a single
reference distribution, what form should that take, and what name should it
take. He commented that the trademark policy should assume some hypothetical
collection of possible artifacts that could be produced by the community and
assign them certain rights, so that the OGB could deliberate on such a
proposal, and perhaps determine that we should negotiate a final agreement
with Sun as trademark owner; or have it turn up at some future ballot for
all the members to decide.
Plocher asked if the trademark policy should carve out a place in its
verbiage for a singular binary something. Wesolowski replied that it
could, but commented that the trademark policy should not be based solely
on whether there is such a distribution or what it's nature might be, but
it should allocate different features of the name-space for differently
categorized products and services and suchlike that we wish to be permitted
to use the brand. Which would take effect would be dependent on future
discussions or votes.
