Shawn Walker wrote: > The only remedy available, in the author's view, is to ensure that > four changes are made by amending our constitution: > > 1) The OGB is empowered to make more decisions for the community. > I believe that the OGB has almost unlimited powers. That is to say, there is little clarification into what the OGB can or can not do, and therefore it will only truly know the extent of its influence once it has attempted to use that power.... to date they have not.
Is the OGB a force to be reckond with or a lame duck? Frankly its an unknown at this time. BUT! This is a good thing! Ambiguity can be easily exploited (for the forces of good, one would hope) in such a way as to put yourself into a position not previously possible under constraint. Its my opinion that the OGB has the power if it so chooses to use them. As Brian Gupta is fond of saying, better to ask forgiveness than permission. > 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. > I agree, a singular leader would be important. I have come to believe that the following are the requirements: 1) They must have non-Sun, non-Solaris F/OSS experience 2) They must have some understanding of Sun and Solaris history and practices 3) They must be (or become) a Sun employee to allow access to various groups within Sun The individual would: 1) Work together with internal projects seeking to open up but lacking guidence. 2) Act as a project manager to OpenSolaris en mass, that is, ensure that community groups and the OGB are working together, keeping on top of day to day activity, and generally acting as a neutral governer over the project. (I previously believed that the OGB itself should do these tasks, but it has resisted such duties at every turn.) 3) Act as a rally point in situations where not appropriate for the OGB I can expound on this but won't unless requested. > 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. > See above. Without Sun the community is doomed; without the community Sun is. While the two could part ways again, the future will be bright and full if we are together. > 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. This final point isn't fully developed I believe. Perhaps you can clarify. It is my opinion that Sun _IS_ part of the community; that is, its developers will (we hope) ultimately contribute in the same way that external developers do and thereby this "Us vs Them" distinction will deteriorate over time. As we learned at the Summit there is still work to be done on Mercurial and process to occur... its taken a long time, but its still not done yet. Its important for all of us to have a measure of faith: nothings dead, just perhaps not moving fast enough to be visible by all. Shawn, you've written an excellent paper here and I thank you for taking the time to write it! benr. _______________________________________________ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
