On Thu, Feb 5, 2009 at 12:48 PM, Ben Rockwood <benr at cuddletech.com> wrote: > 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.
Very well written, Ben. Thank you for expressing this in such a good quality and balance. Every independent ForHerOrHimSelf-speaking community citizen should thank and support you with urging those in power to truly address and hopefully resolve those foggy longterm issues (instead of attempting to move them under the carpet). I have nothing against SMI. I like no corporation more than this one. I thank them for the code and project. But if something is called foo, then why shouldn't we demand that we get foo. Otherwise it should simply have been labeled differently. Those rather few who really believe 100% in this project put a considerable amount of their personal resources into it, as we all know. So let's stay fair with them. Of course this also includes quite some enthusiastic SM engineers. I leave it to the OGB polititians and specialists now. Thanks. +1 %m
