On 9/22/07, Jim Grisanzio <Jim.Grisanzio at sun.com> wrote: > > Darren Reed wrote: > > The OGB doesn't appear to me to be actually doing anything. It > > appears more more like an arbitration council that also sanctions > > community decisions about which communities to create and how to > > make a contributor/core contributor. "So what". In this guise > > it feels more like a rubber stamp operation than anything meaningful.
The term "rubber stamp" has some negative connotations; the OGB is (and should be) hands off. In fact I think even the rubber-stamping bit is incorrect - my reading is that the community groups have a responsibility to notify the OGB of certain decisions rather than asking for approval. > There was a lot of discussion about this when the initial OGB was > writing the Constitution. I think the intent was to distribute > leadership and decision making power among the communities and projects > and not centralize it in the OGB. The communities I'm associated with seem not to have been very active in taking up their leadership roles. (In the organizational sense - technical stuff happens anyway.) I know that you, Jim, have been very active in driving the advocacy community; we've just started taking baby steps in organizing the sysadmin community. I don't see that any blame should be directed at the OGB - it's doing what it's supposed to. Rather, the community groups need to get their act together more as they're where the action is supposed to be, which means ultimately that the membership of the community groups need to get their finger out. -- -Peter Tribble http://www.petertribble.co.uk/ - http://ptribble.blogspot.com/
