Shawn Walker wrote: > and voting on every issue is likely to end in deadlock either due to > the apathy of eligible voters [31] or a vocal minority that prevents > consensus from being achieved.
Bearing in mind there's only ever been one vote I think it's a little premature to say that our existing mechanisms don't work. And the voting system is specifically designed to prevent deadlock. And I don't really care too much about minorities, vocal or not. What I care about is majority opinion, measured by a vote when necessary. And no I'm *not* advocating voting on everything, just when appropriate - and that itself is a topic that needs further discussion. > The author believes that Sun must be allowed to fulfil this role as a > key leader for many reasons. Sun is accountable to their shareholders > for their significant financial support they provide to the > OpenSolaris project; whether that is directly or through a foundation > is immaterial. The potential for our sustained growth and success, and > to a certain extent, Sun's, is directly tied to the community. Failure > or Success by either Sun or of the community will affect both. Sun can't be a 'leader', whatever that is. Sun is a company, not a person. When you say 'leader' you mean 'person'. Who would that person be? Which part of the company would they be from? From outside Sun it's tempting to view Sun as a homogeneous whole, but like any big organisation, that isn't the case. If you are invoking 'Sun' as the central point of control you aren't actually solving any issues, you are just moving them from one place to another. > In conclusion, to resolve these deficiencies, it is the author's > belief that our existing governance structure must be revised to > ensure that clear, inspired leadership is provided to our community > (as a whole). Communities surrounding the Linux kernel [32], Ubuntu, > Python [33], OpenBSD, Apple, et al. have shown us how significant, > sustained growth and success can be achieved when a specific > individual helps provide the clear, inspired leadership every > community needs. Our community would not even exist today if were not > for the decision of leadership (notably, Jonathan Schwartz) [34] at > Sun to provide the source code that provides the reason for our > existence. You've ignored one of the main inspirations for the OpenSolaris governance model - The Apache Software Foundation. In fact one of the founder members of the ASF helped draw up the OpenSolaris constitution. From http://www.apache.org/foundation/how-it-works.html: "Unlike other software development efforts done under an open source license, the Apache Web Server was not initiated by a single developer (for example, like the Linux Kernel, or the Perl/ Python languages), but started as a diverse group of people that shared common interests and got to know each other by exchanging information, fixes and suggestions." That's far, far closer to the OpenSolaris situation than any of the examples you've quoted. I wasn't involved in the drafting of the constitution, but I can understand why the ASF model was chosen as an inspiration, and I think it was a good choice for OpenSolaris. Where I *do* agree with you is that the OGB has not been the guiding force it should perhaps have been. It seems to me 'from the outside' that the OGB has sometimes become bogged down by constitutional minutiae. I know it must be very difficult when you are effectively the 'First Watch', but I think the OGB needs to try to see the constitution as empowering it, not restricting what it can do. However I don't think the answer to the current teething problems is to throw out what we have. > 1) The OGB is empowered to make more decisions for the community. Which decisions? When? How? If you are going to make a proposal for constitutional change it needs to be *very* specific. I'd need to see far more detail before I could agree or disagree with this assertion. > 2) An individual is chosen by our community to work with the OGB. They > will provide clear, inspired leadership and vision. It must be made > known that this position is one that is likely to be full-time and > require their complete focus. Any individual that is part of our > community should be eligible for this position regardless of whom they > are or are not employed by. What does 'with' mean? Who gets the final say? This person would br doing what, exactly? ('leadership and vision' is way to vague). If it is full-time, paid by who? What about conflicts of interest? Again, far more detail is needed. > 3) That Sun is permitted, as the principal stakeholder in our > community, to play a key role in product development and marketing of > the OpenSolaris trademark (which they own) given their clear > experience, accountability to their shareholders, and success in this > area. This role must be given a greater degree of authority than what > is currently granted by the constitution. The only mention of trademarks in the constitution is a stipulation that you can't use an established one as a community name. And nobody is disputing that Sun is a) a principle stakeholder b) plays a key role in product development or c) owns the OpenSolaris trademark. Sun doesn't need the 'authority' of the OGB any more than OGB requires the 'authority' of Sun to carry out its work. As far as I know, what has been asked for by the OGB is a discussion of the issues and a subsequent agreement on how the trademark is to be used. None of that requires constitutional change. > 4) That the role of product development and marketing, as outlined in > our constitution, should be shared with Sun in a well-defined manner > with qualified members of the community. Unless I've missed it the constitution doesn't say anything relevant about product development and marketing - or are you referring to some future version of the constitution? And in any case, neither of those things requires constitutional change, all that is required is an agreement between the OpenSolaris community and the appropriate people and groups within Sun. It is unworkable to propose that we have to make constitutional changes for what are purely organisational issues. It is not realistic to expect that every aspect of the functioning of the OpenSolaris community is promulgated in the constitution. The constitution is supposed to lay down a framework within which the community can operate and come to decisions, it is not supposed to rigidly define the permitted types of interactions, or the decisions which are made. I'm not saying that the constitution couldn't do with tuning in some areas, but I disagree with the areas and justifications that you've chosen. -- Alan Burlison -- _______________________________________________ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
