Roy T. Fielding wrote: > Umm, for future reference, it is senseless to vote on doing nothing. > The correct thing for a board to do is either refuse to consider the > motion (usually when nobody on the board is interested) or to vote > on the motion as described/amended (and thereby reject it if the > "no" votes carry). > > Mind you, these minutes (like all the minutes so far) highlight an > ongoing concern that the OGB refuses to govern. The only positive > decision made was to create a committee to stick your noses where > they don't belong, namely in approving the technical content of > an ongoing project (website). If you were the Apache board, a round > of trout slapping would soon follow.
And what would have resulted from that slapping? In other words, who runs the Apache project? Is the board an active board or a passive board? I'd also be interested to know how the Apache board itself functions because it seem successful in ways our OGB is not. Do they have weekly con-calls? Are Robert's Rules of Order and such structural mechanisms followed? I think we need to explore some of these issues for the new OGB, so we don't re-create what we have now. Any help there would be most appreciated. > If the work of the OGB required the acceptance of each community it > effected, then we wouldn't need an OGB. You have been elected to > govern, not just to advise Sun (as the CAB was), and certainly not > to stand idle when a project decides that neither community nor > open source are relevant to "OpenSolaris" as a distribution. > > Do something. I only picked Desktop because of the original > Indiana proposal. If you want to be fair, then dissolve *all* of > the communities and replace them with one Group per cohesive set > of related projects. Finally, institute a feedback mechanism: > require that each Group report to the OGB every three months > and identify what it is they are "governing" and why they should > continue to do so. This would be a good way to weed the dead CGs and start simplifying things. I'd also support the notion of just starting over and organizing the community from scratch -- but only if that is implemented by a new OGB. Aside from the consolidation of Marketing, Immigrants, and User Groups into the Advocacy CG, I'm not sure anything else has happened with the community re-org. And I'm not at all convinced that the Advocacy CG is properly scoped, either, but at least it consolidated three dysfunctional Communities into one dysfunctional Community Group. Better than nothing, I suppose. So, I'd certainly welcome a fresh look at the entire community at this point. Jim -- http://blogs.sun.com/jimgris
