Jim Grisanzio wrote: > Ben Rockwood wrote: >> As I see it there is one major component of the charter that must be >> changed to comply with the new constitution, that being to strike >> Charter 2.5: >> >> 2.5. The intended methods of communication between the OGB and Sun. >> >> The constitution is mute on this point. Please, correct me if I'm >> wrong. >> >> Do we really wish to sever our connection to the company that owns our >> communities trademark? website? code? .... >> > > Conversations between Sun employees in the community and non-Sun > community members take place all the time at many levels, and those > conversations will obviously continue -- and they don`t need the > permission of the Charter or the Constitution. There is no reason to > centralize communication channels with only the OGB. The board is one > communication channel, sure, but it`s certainly not the only one. This > is simply a reflection of how the community operates in practice.
Upon reflection of this entire matter to date, I see a pattern. All this has circled around a single concept, best phrased in the response above: "operates in practice." Section 6.1, "Governing Board: Powers", of our current (and binding) Constitution includes the following: "The OGB shall serve as the official liaison between the OpenSolaris Community and Sun Microsystems, Inc., and shall represent the OpenSolaris Community to external organizations. " While the OGB itself is formed currently of past or present employees of SMI, none (despite their station) act themselves as representatives of SMI. Never the less, formal and transparent communication with the corporation has been spotty at the best of times, and completely absent otherwise. The OGB is a representative board. Persons, from our membership, which are elected to represent the whole. The formal coupling of "us" (the community) and "them" (the corporation). I therefore say the following; if the OGB is unable and/or unwilling to fulfill this duty it serves no purpose at all. We have never fully committed ourselves to the task of implementing and upholding the Charter nor the Constitution. Instead, we have sited how we operate in practice. This board, our representatives, have voted agreeably with this position. But I say that the existing practice is broken. It always has been broken. We have forged forward with hopes that our practice should be brought into alignment with our ideals, but we cowardly retreat from progress. Have we not ourselves witnessed these errors? The trademark? OpenSolaris.com? Need I go on? I say now, as I've said more subtly in the past, this community lacks real leadership. Not since the demise of Tonic, loss of Madam Claire Giordano, Mr. Roy Fielding, Mr. Keith Wesolowski, et al, have we had such leadership as during our Pilot. In the pilot we set forth great and noble goals for our community and for ourselves. Since that time we have only retreated further and further from them, losing valuable and noble persons in the wake. Consider a clause from Article 2 of our existing constitution that shall be lost should this new constitution be (illegally) adopted: "All software produced by the OpenSolaris Community shall be licensed to the public free of charge under one or more open source licenses approved by the Open Source Initiative. " Is our Constitution the guidelines of the OGB or the bylaws of our entire community? Indeed the latter! I therefore put it yet again before the standing board, prior to this upcoming election: It is not our Charter, nor our Constitution which are broken, but more surely the "practice" to which we cling so dearly! Respectfully, benr.
