Darren Reed wrote: > Alan DuBoff wrote: > >> On Thu, 20 Sep 2007, Darren Reed wrote: >> >>> Possibly. And having put the problem like this, for better or worse, >>> what OpenSolaris needs is a board of directors (or the equivalent): >>> a body that can make decisions; not just have discussions via email >>> and try to resolve "issues". >>> >>> How would that be different to the OGB? No open board-discuss >>> for starters. Have it function like a real board: meet monthly or >>> quarterly, publish the minutes of the meetings, appoint a chairman, >>> give the board power to make decisions that change opensolaris >>> without needing votes, etc... >> >> I thought this was what the OGB was doing...silly me... > > > Maybe they are - there are better things to do than waste time > trying to follow ogb-discuss and opensolaris-discuss.
So I'm confused, if you feel there are issues with the OGB - then wouldn't ogb-discuss be the relevant place to raise these issues? It hardly seems like wasting time. There is a pretty low signal to noise ratio on ogb-discuss. cheers, steve -- stephen lau // stevel at sun.com | 650.786.0845 | http://whacked.net opensolaris // solaris kernel development
