On Dec 20, 2007 11:31 AM, John Plocher <John.Plocher at sun.com> wrote:
> John Plocher wrote: > > Rather than creating guidelines for the effective delegation > > of authority and responsibility, we seem to be centralizing it. > > > [Sent too soon - thats what I get for composing multiple emails > at the same time] > > I meant to add the following: > Under the charter, the OGB really has no control over the non-CG > and non-Project pages. The website, the infrastructure and the > [NonCG/P] pages are (or could be claimed to be) Sun assets. > If nothing else, I think this conversation is proving to be a useful exercise even if we accomplish nothing other than clearing up this ambiguity. My understanding is that this is something that Sun wants the community to run, as OpenSolaris.org is a community site. Do you have information to the contrary? Just as in the trademark and branding discussion [which is on hold, > pending OGB action on the OpenSolaris/Indiana issue], Sun is > opening up its control of these assets and allowing the OS.o > community to provide input and suggestions. But, in the legal end, > Sun retains the ownership and control. Legally the only option is to start an independent foundation. In lieu of that, I choose to trust Sun at it's stated intentions. Sun helped establish the charter constitution and OGB. This is the direction that current Sun executive leadership wants us moving in. Please speak up clearly, if you have information to the contrary. Setting up an OS.o committee that pretends to take that control from Sun > (rather than trying to work with Sun) suggests that we > are either looking to force a confrontation or to set it up for > failure. Your statement raises an interesting question. For most of us outside observers, this exercise by the OGB seems very reasonable, as it seems to clarify a spot of ambiguity, rather than "reassign" existing responsibilities. Is your point that there are people already doing this on behalf of Sun, rather than as members of the community, and that the OGB is in affect reassigning this power? As I said, this seems wrong. I was on the fence about this whole CG vs. Committee thing, but you have helped crystallize my view, in such that I now fully support an OGB sponsored editorial review board. (Although it seems that there is still some work to be done defining the scope of editorial review. I suspect that for the most part the actual work will still be done at the CG level. IE: I don't think that it will be the role of the committee to drive the content.). At this point a decision has been made by the OGB for the OpenSolaris community's benefit. We should support it, and see how it works out. If it proves to be a non ideal path, the community and the OGB can always revisit the decision in the future. -Brian P.S. - Happy holidays all!! -- - Brian Gupta http://opensolaris.org/os/project/nycosug/ -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://mail.opensolaris.org/pipermail/ogb-discuss/attachments/20071220/50275746/attachment.html>
