Agree. I at least feel OpenSolaris would benefit from stronger leadership. I feel the OGB taking the role of the weaker federal government might be a fine long-term goal; but it seems the community would rather the OGB be the stronger more assertive leader right now.
cheers, steve Nicholas Solter wrote: > Hi folks, > > I've been hesitant to jump into this discussion (and the previous few on > the roles of the OGB), but I'd like to share my thoughts. It strikes me > that a couple of analogies to governance of countries, specifically the > United States, might give some perspective. > > First, OpenSolaris seems to be intended to be a confederation, with > independent Community Groups (states) governing themselves and a weak > OGB (federal government). I think much of the confusion and many of the > complaints about the OGB stem from a lack of understanding that this is > the way things are supposed to be. Many of us (myself included) seem to > assume at first that the OGB is supposed to be a strong federal > government, and is somehow derelict if it doesn't actively take on that > role. On the contrary, it seems that the OBG is deliberately taking a > "states' rights" view, and trying as hard as possible to stay out of the > way. This isn't an invalid way to run things, but seems to be contrary > to what many of us are expecting and assuming. > > Second, in the United States federal government there are three > branches. In theory (and very much in theory only, but let's not get > into that :-), the legislative branch writes the laws, the executive > branch enforces the laws, and the judicial branch interprets the laws. > As the "federal government" of opensolaris, the OBG seems to feel that > its role is primarily judicial. That is, it doesn't seem to be writing > new rules and regulations, nor actively ensuring the existing ones are > followed. Instead, it seems to see itself as an adjudicating body, which > will resolve disputes and answer questions that are brought to it. > Again, this isn't a bad approach. It's just that many of us seem to > expect the OGB to be more of an executive branch, actively broadcasting > the rules and regulations and ensuring they're followed. > > OGB members, do you agree or disagree with this characterization? > > Thanks, > Nick > > Darren J Moffat wrote: > >> Jim Grisanzio wrote: >> >>> If you have an approved but not yet created project that no one has sent >>> to the OGB as per the project creation process then I'd argue that you >>> don't have an approved project. The process hasn't been completed. Why >>> is it so difficult for someone in that CG to monitor the list for >>> project discussions and votes, walk people through the process, and keep >>> track of stuff? What am I missing? I do this with Advocacy specifically >>> because we have a lot people in user groups around the world whose first >>> language is not English, and so some of this is confusing. So, I walk >>> everyone through it from beginning to end. >>> >> Because it all takes time and someone has to learn and remember that all >> this needs to be done. In my opinion the OGB has done a very poor job >> letting the communities know what is expected of them in areas like >> this. It appears to me that the OGB assumes that community leaders >> actively "pull" information, stuff this important (even if it is in the >> approved constitution) really should be "pushed" (just once is fine). >> >> Now that I know we need to do this I'm working to rectify things for the >> security community. >> >> > >
