On Oct 18, 2007, at 21:44, Stephen Lau wrote: > Simon Phipps wrote: >> >> On Oct 18, 2007, at 19:31, Stephen Lau wrote: >> >>> While OpenSolaris governance, for the most part is left up to the >>> various Community Groups, something that is cross-community >>> impacting, >>> like Indiana taking on the OpenSolaris name is exactly the kind >>> of issue >>> that is a board issue. >> >> I disagree. It is a job for the Advocacy group, just as all the >> other parts of OpenSolaris, upon which we are all reliant, are the >> responsibility of the experts within their respective groups. >> >> S. > Sorry I worded poorly - it's not a board issue in the sense that > the board needs to decide. I think it's a board issue in that if > the Advocacy community has reached a decision which impacts the > entire OpenSolaris Community (as I think this decision does), then > it's a board responsibility to solicit input and/or hold it up to > an OpenSolaris Community wide vote. I don't think it should purely > rest in the hands of the Advocacy group.
I get your point, but why not, exactly? We trust all other parts of the community to take critical decisions on which we all rely without Board review or plebiscite; why should branding decisions by marketing experts be any different? Will we be putting all key architectural decisions up for member vote? It is most certainly not the OGB's responsibility; their role is to create a group where experts can do work, if no such group exists. If they do not believe the Advocacy group is that place, they need to justify the decision and then create a suitable (non-Board) venue. > > (spoken as my personal opinion only, not speaking for the rest of > the board) Naturally :-) And my comments are as me, not as some Sun guy. S.
