On Mar 30, 2009, at 23:07, Peter Tribble wrote: > > Some things I hear: > > 1) The fact that OGB no longer "represents" the community in > relations with Sun.
When a formal communication with a non-person is called for, the OGB would obviously be the group to make it. I don't think anyone has ever proposed anything else. It's just not the main purpose of the OGB. > I realize that we wanted to make it clear that interactions between > community > members and Sun (and other organizations) happen at all levels; we > also > have section 2.5 of the charter that may or may not be modified (I'm > actually > happy with section 2.5 of the charter as is - it merely specifies how > the OGB and > Sun communicate, not how the community and Sun communicate). However, > the OGB should be the official channel, we just need to make it > clear that > official does not mean only or all the time. Right. I'd be happy to tinker with the constitution wording to reflect that. How about at the end of 3.1 adding something like: "On the occasions that a collective statement or communication is required by the OpenSolaris community to any individual or organisation, the OGB will make such a statement following the passing of a suitable motion by its members containing the text of the statement." > 2) The removal of the open source requirement. > > That's a thornier one. The OGB owns no copyright in the code and can > therefore > make no pronouncements as to licensing. The fact remains that we > should be > an open source community and many people have joined the community > on that > basis. Strengthening of the purpose from the charter might make it > easier. I believe this is a change the Charter requires. Right up there at the top, Sun needs to commit that the code the OpenSolaris community works on is and always will be open source. > > > 3) A personal thing, but I would like to get the code of conduct in > there somehow. How about if we added to section 4.2 and reference the code of conduct as a Board Procedure. Something like: "There may arise situations where the behavior of an individual community member violates the Community's norms. The OGB will maintain a [Code of Conduct](link) to provide guidance on those norms. > > >> We will also need a new editor as Jim wrote the document we >> currently have - >> would you like to do it? I've avoided doing so all along since >> there are >> folk around wanting to accuse me of driving Sun's agenda. > > If nobody else steps forward, I can take that on. Awesome. Let's vote on that in the Constitution agenda item on Wednesday. >> >> I think Charter first. There's a list of changes needed on the wiki >> - the >> biggest change is the addition of a mission statement. We could >> probably >> have a new charter ready by the start of May. > > As mentioned above, I'm not sure we need to change 2.5, at least not > for > those reasons. If we make a change like the one I've sketched above, I agree. > Do you anticipate keeping all the bootstrapping and transtitional > parts > of the charter? They are needed if the OGB ever fails to be elected or otherwise disbands; we may want to update the words to reflect that purpose. > I think there's one big decision to make: do we expend all our > energies on > the constitution, or do we decide that some other community building > activity > deserves priority? Having spent a lot of energy on the constitution already, I'd favour focussing elsewhere. We can't live with the old constitution as it stands, however, which is why I am keen for the OGB to set itself aggressive goals to iterate and move on. S.
