John Beck wrote: > Ben> [many valid but lesser points elided] > > Ben> As I have historically, so do I also now, believe in a strong OGB and > Ben> a strong constitution. I do not believe that this draft establishes > Ben> either. Furthermore, I see no advantages in this new document as > Ben> opposed to the existing. > > The way I see it, the old document was too complex for the sort of community > we've been trying to have, so we greatly simplified it. As a side-effect of > that simplification, the OGB has less to do. It would be fair to say that > we are thus weakening the OGB and the constitution; *I* would characterize > that as secondary rather primary, though reasonable people can disagree. > > Let me try an analogy from a separate world that some of us share. In the Old > Testament, God established the Law to give people a way to live in community. > But the Law was complex and hard; the people were not capable of keeping it, > so eventually God had to send a Divine Intercessor to save them from their > sins. Well, we tried a complex set of laws to govern *this* community, but > found that they were also more than people could really live up to. Since > we lack divine power, we're left with the earthly option of simplifying our > governance instead.
As a theologian and as a fellow brother in Christ, I would love to debate this with you, but I'll do so in private. :) I think the more applicable analogy of this division comes from American history. For all intents a purposes I am a Federalist, whereas many others are Republicans (please, I'm using 1780 historical terminology, not modern day politics). While the republic model is simplistic, it is also chaotic and unbalanced. Similar to Adams (although not as far as Hamilton) I believe that a strong central (federal) government provides a more robust and equal framework on which to hang communities, projects, etc. Drawing from the same analogy... one of the most important functions of the federal government, aside from binding the republic together, is to speak in a unified voice to foreign governments. In our case thats SMI. The bonds between the community and SMI must be formalized and strengthened. THIS is what we lack, not simplicity in a document which is ignored by anyone who is displeased by it, whether @sun.com is in their email address or not. Consider... OpenSolaris.org is independent of OpenSolaris the distribution. I, as a community member, have no say with regard to our product. Even as a member of the board. I can contribute to projects, I can represent the community, but our constitution defines us as a social organization, even in the most recent reincarnation... nothing more. To be blunt, I don't think the community has a real stake in OpenSolaris. It is still SMI run, SMI controlled, and even this body is allowed to continue at the discression of SMI. I wish to interject at this point a word of caution. Phrases such as "despite our flaws" suggests ill will. I bear no such ill will to anyone. We are all reasonable and intelligent individuals with the best intentions for OpenSolaris, and dare I say SMI as a whole, in mind. While I wish with all my heart that we were of one mind, I have an obligation, as you will understand John, to do that which is before me with the fullness of my ability, and that shall I do even if its unpopular. With respect, benr.
