On 06/11/2007, Alan Burlison <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Shawn Walker wrote: > > >> premature to say that our existing mechanisms don't work. And the > > > > It has been well over a year that we have been a self-governing body. > > The fact that the mechanisms we have are not used and that so little > > progress in certain areas has been made implies to me that they do not > > work. > > That statement fails to distinguish between the mechanisms we have in > place already and our use (or lack of use) of them. Discarding the > structures we have because we haven't used them effectively doesn't seem > sensible.
I have not proposed a discarding of structures though. I have instead proposed a further empowerment of them, and then an alteration to them. > > No, I mean Sun as a leader in the role defined in change #3 listed in > > the proposal. I do not mean a specific individual since those change > > at Sun quite frequently from what I've been told :) > > Then you don't have a workable proposal, sorry. I've already explained > that Sun is not a single entity, and the word 'leader' implies that > there is a named person who will represent Sun. It does not to me; nor is my proposal intended to definitely define every single detail. As I mentioned before, the purpose of the proposal is to "provoke productive discussion." I am not naive enough to believe that I have the answers to every question; or that I am qualified to define every detail. > >> 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. > > > > No, I haven't ignored them. I merely omitted them from the document > > for the sake of my personal sanity and brevity. I also felt that I was > > not qualified to properly comment on their model as I have little to > > no experience with them and given one of our prominent community > > member's personal involvement; felt that it would not be appropriate. > > Eh? that's a *very* bizarre paragraph. You deliberately omitted to > mention the ASF model? That seems suspiciously like tailoring your > evidence to suit your agenda. And if *your* experience is valid, as you > claim, how can you simultaneously hold that the experience of others isn't? Just as a prosecutor in a criminal case does not have to always use all the evidence available to him to prove the guilt of a defendant, neither do I have to use all the evidence available to me to prove the need for clear leadership. I did mention Apache; I merely chose not to use their governance model for comparison because I do not have an adequate understanding of it. I chose governance models that were clear to me and that I felt I could look at in an unbiased manner. I have never claimed that it wasn't a valid model; I just gave my personal opinion of it. Having an opinion on something and feeling qualified to use it as a basis for a proposal are two entirely different things. > > That's great for Apache. However, I don't feel that their governance > > model works for us; they seem to have the strong leadership they > > already need. I believe that our community needs clearer direction. > > A paragraph ago you were claiming ignorance of all things ASF-related, > yet now you feel qualified to discard the applicability of their model > to OpenSolaris. On what basis? I didn't claim ignorance of all things ASF-related; I said that I was "not qualified to properly comment on it" -- in the form of a proposal is what I was implying. I do not claim to disqualify its applicability; rather, I was basing my comment on your comment that ours was a better match to it. So, based on your comment that ours is a better match to it; my conclusion is that it must not work very well for us then given our problems and lack of sustained growth and success in some areas. > >> 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. > > > > I'm quite aware that this was the "inspiration" given it's primary drafter. > > I'm not sure who you think the primary drafter was, but I suspect from > the above that you've got the wrong person. Perhaps. > > Yes, but the current constitution doesn't make it clear enough who has > > this authority. As a result, we have people arguing over exactly how > > much control the community does have over the usage of the trademark > > that bears our name, and how that can be used to represent us. Without > > that clear definition, we will continue to have disagreements over > > whom can do what. > > That's a clear misrepresentation of the situation. It is quite clear > that everyone understands that Sun is the holder of the trademark, what Which only reinforces my point that there is confusion among the community. Clear leadership and vision would have helped prevent that confusion. If it is clear that Sun is the holder of the trademark, and holds all rights to it, why are there arguments over how they can allow it to be used ? > has been asked for discussion and eventual joint agreement of the rules > governing the use of the trademark - something that I believe was at on > the drawing board for some time anyway. Which is my problem with the current situation. Sun currently holds all rights to its usage; yet people are complaining about them exercising their rights by allowing usage as they see fit. You'll also note that my proposal commented on the fact that certain things needed to be shared with Sun in a well-defined manner. > >>> 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 > > > > The constitution does mention it; which is why I had citations in the > > original proposal. Specifically, if you look at [25]: > > > > http://www.opensolaris.org/os/community/ogb/governance/#ARTICLE_III.__Structure.2C_Participation.2C_and_Roles > > > > You will see that the link above is to a section where the first > > paragraph specifically states: > > "The OGB, in turn, delegates the organization and decision-making for > > specific OpenSolaris activities, such as ****product development and > > marketing tasks****, through the creation of Community Groups." > > That's "such as" not "restricted to", it is an example of the sorts of > areas the OGB should be involved in, not a prescriptive list. It needs > to be read in context, not quoted out of it. It is talking about the > mechanisms the OGB uses for devolving work, with those items being just > examples. There are many others. Even if I read it in context, it doesn't change the meaning for me. I also fail to see the relevancy of making a distinction between "restricted to" and "such as" here. Whether it is an example or a definitive list is immaterial for the purpose of the proposal. Since it is an example listed in the constitution, one would assume, logically, that it is something that should have been delegated. I, personally, do not believe that it has been adequately defined or delegated. > >> 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. > > > > How is it unworkable? If it is, it is no more so than the current > > situation where almost two years later, the groups are supposed to be > > responsible: > > > > 1) Have not been designated > > Wrong. Then why are their debates over which community group is responsible for the front-page content of OpenSolaris.org? Why are their debates over which community group is responsible for deciding naming of projects? Why are their debates over which community group should be allowed to host a project such as Project Indiana? > > 2) If they have been designated, have no fulfilled their responsibilities. > > That's a sweeping generalisation, and is therefore also wrong. Most > have, some haven't. It is not a sweeping generalisation when taken in the context of the proposal; which is what this discussion is about. Specifically, I am talking about "product development and marketing tasks" as well as the specific conversations that I cited within the proposal in regards to whom has authority over areas of the community, such as the website content, etc. > > 3) Have utterly failed, apparently, as should be shown by recent debates. > > Wrong, in fact quite the opposite. If the presence of debate is taken > as a sign of failure, then we are in *deep* trouble. I actually view > the current situation in a far more positive light - the potential > awakening of the community. The presence of debate is not the sign of failure; the presence of debate with limited consensus due to the lack of well-defined areas of responsibility and control is. > > It also not realistic to expect a community to achieve sustained > > growth and success if we don't have a document defining areas of > > responsibility and expected tasks. Because we do not have such a > > document at the moment, our community continues to debate who exactly > > has authority over what, and has bickered endlessly over topics that > > should have been decided long ago. > > You seem to be confusing lack of appropriate mechanisms with our failure > to use the ones already in place. And you seem to want to stuff what > should be procedural rules into the constitution, and they just don't > belong in there. We don't need to change the constitution to make rules > about how we operate. The constitution *may* need amending as I've said > earlier, but I haven't seen anything in your proposal that I agree with > *and* that needs to be enshrined in the constitution. On the contrary; I am not confused at all about this. I respectfully disagree that certain procedural rules do not belong in the constitution. Time and time again it has been said that the OGB can only act as an "arbiter" of sorts; it is my belief that they must be empowered to actually *guide* the community. -- Shawn Walker, Software and Systems Analyst http://binarycrusader.blogspot.com/ "We don't have enough parallel universes to allow all uses of all junction types--in the absence of quantum computing the combinatorics are not in our favor..." --Larry Wall _______________________________________________ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
