Rather than be drawn into individual issues with the current draft beyond what I already provided (my replies would just echo my previous statements), I shall focus on the big issues.
First, while it is a minority position, I believe in honor and formality. I am a proponent of parliamentary order (which I had to learn when I served on that board). The charter was written in legal yet terse terminology and thus should the Constitution follow. It is my belief that to avoid this is to defraud the honor of the community. The former position isn't one of which I feel a need to debate, it simple is my opinion, which was solicited. Second, it is necessary that the constitution, in any revision, adhere to the requirements set forth by our charter. Third, rewriting the constitution to fit "what is" rather than push us toward that which "can be" is a net loss for the community. I therefore stand opposed to this current draft as a whole. Based on my writings over the last 2 years this should be no surprise. Fourth, I believe in being explicit, even if that means explicitly denoting flexibility. Specifying the rights and responsibilities that are attributed to each role is essential. Outlining the rights and responsibilities of the OGB and its members is essential. To this end, the OGB has no power because it has no ascribed itself any. Fifth, the draft makes no provision for corporate involvement or protection. But, over and above all this... the document lacks detail on the inter-relation of the OpenSolaris Community and SMI. To this day, the relation between the community, the OGB, and SMI have been foggy at best, and from certain points of view, entirely undefined beyond the charter. I have spoken at length regarding this matters in the past and will not re-iterate them here. As for these opinions, I leave it to our elected representatives to assess their value. benr. Simon Phipps wrote: > Thanks for the comments. Personal responses in-line. > > On Feb 5, 2009, at 06:50, Ben Rockwood wrote: > >> Firstly, I personal believe that there should be some leading >> statement or preamble on the document. > > What would it say? I find the text after the first heading sufficient, > although I'd be interested in suggestions. > >> Secondly, I personally believe the tone of the document is far too >> informal. It reads more like a README than a constitution. > > Can you explain why that's a problem? Clear, simple language > accessible globally would seem a good thing. Or am I missing your point? > >> Regarding Section 1.1: >> * Projects should be defined rather as "Working groups assembled to >> collaborate on a distinct cause/effort." Projects may not involve >> code repositories or integration tools, for example docs. > > Docs use repositories, don't they? Non-code groups are covered by the > concept "communities". > >> >> * Electorate should be defined rather as "A superset of the community >> empowered to vote in elections." The current wording wrongly >> suggests the electorate governs, rather than simply elect the governors. > > The electorate governs through those elected, and additionally should > form a community of reference for them. Thus I believe wording like > that used is appropriate. > >> Regarding Section 1.2: >> * The roles strike me as too generic. > > Can you identify in what way that needs correcting in your view? > >> Regarding Section 2.3: >> * Special elections to "fill any vacancies on the board" seems to me >> to contradict 3.4. > > I don't think it does. It specifies that vacancies are filled from the > candidates at the previous election, and if there are none willing > then thevacancies can be filled by a special election. > >> Regarding 3.1: >> * With respect, the section seems generic and flimsy. It ascribes no >> real power to the OGB. "help mediate disputes" seems an option >> rather than requirement... thus if a dispute arose and the involved >> parties rejected OGB intervention I see no reason the constitution >> should allow the OGB to intercede. > > What is missing, in your view? > >> Regarding 3.4.1: >> * This should be entitled "OGB Dissolution", rather than Community. > > I agree, this section needs a new title. > >> Regarding 3.8: >> * There are no bounds put around committees, nor power given to them. > > Board committees can indeed do anything the Board chooses within the > scope of its remit. I'd hope the result will be broader participation > in governance by the creation of a Committee whenever a significant > task is needed, rather than assuming the OGB can do it all. > >> Regarding 4.1: >> * Again, as with 3.1, there is no word that the board can intervene, >> only that it can if asked. > > Yes. Is that a problem? Why should anyone intervene in a matter until > it reaches the point where the group involved requests intervention? > >> Furthermore, the resolution it provides is not binding. > > No, the statement "If the Board chooses to mediate, it will resolve > the issue at its absolute discretion." indicates that the OGB has > binding and final authority in the case that it is invited to > intervene and chooses to do so. > >> Regarding 4.2: >> * This seems needless, excessive, and dangerious. "violates the >> Community's norms"? That's very scary. > > Would you propose dropping the whole of section 4.2? I might agree > with that. > >> === >> >> In regards to the whole: >> * The document does not describe the rights or responsibilities of >> anyone or anything. Further, I do not see sufficient power delegated >> to anyone. Whereas the current constitution is lacking is definition >> of power, this draft is completely bereft of it. (bordering on >> violation of 2.4 of the Charter) > > What powers would you envisage being added? The thrust is on > describing the collection of self-governed groups that OpenSolaris has > evolved into. > >> >> * The Charter states that the constitution shall describe the >> "intended methods of communication between the OGB and Sun"... this >> document does not. > > I agree, the Charter needs revision and we'll need to arrange that if > the Constitution is adopted. > >> >> * Again, the tone is excessively informal. >> >> >> As I have historically, so do I also now, believe in a strong OGB and >> a strong constitution. I do not believe that this draft establishes >> either. Furthermore, I see no advantages in this new document as >> opposed to the existing. > > I believe this document reflects the actual operational nature of the > OpenSolaris community as it exists today and thus is much better than > the existing constitution. It clears away ideas and structures that > turned out to be inappropriate and makes clear that the OGB's role is > to facilitate. > > Thanks for the helpful comments, interested in your further responses. > > S. >
