On Oct 18, 2007, at 22:30, Eric Boutilier wrote: > On Thu, 18 Oct 2007, 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. >> > > I'm inclined, at first, to agree with those who argue it's a job > for the OGB, but this is an interesting point of view I hadn't > thought of. Could you expand on it please? The main question > that comes to my mind is what if another CG doesn't agree with > the advocacy CG's findings in this regard?
It's not obvious to me that there is a clear procedure for this circumstance, which would also apply in the general case of one part of the OpenSolaris community implementing an element of the system (API, interface, option etc) that another group disagreed with for some reason. The case of the Advocacy group is by no means unique, even if it is one where everyone thinks they are an expert and the experts are not :-) S.
