Rainer Heilke wrote: > Jim Grisanzio wrote: >> >> To a more rational representation of how governance can help support the > <snip> >> governance to the back. > > Having been a member/observer of this "organization" since very > shortly after it went public, I would tend to agree with this > analysis. I would only add that, IMO, it was a very easy "mistake" to > make. But, as Jim and others point out, that doesn't mean we have to > keep it. There can be a happy medium between what we have and the > "benevolent dictatorship" model of the Linux kernel governance.
yah, mistake may be an unnecessarily harsh judgment on my part. I don't mean it to be. The people back then (and I was part of that group) did what they thought was best based given the circumstances they were dealing with at the time, and I can assure you, it surely wasn't a mistake back then. :) We were under pressure from Sun and some open source advocates to at least launch with the assertion that we'd create governance, which is exactly what we did. And then we went about creating the governance over the next two years or so. However, the people who would have to live under that governance -- the OpenSolaris community -- hadn't really formed yet, interest has always been relatively low, and it took some time to open parts of the project itself. So that's why I say we were premature. It's not a big deal, really. It's a lesson learned. Add it to the list. I view the upcoming site upgrade -- which is a significant -- as the /start/ of the reorg of the community, not the reorg itself. The new infrastructure is flexible by design but it will implemented over time, so we ought to take advantage of that and build governance structures only if needed and only as they are needed. That's why I want to start with the absolute minimum required to get us to the next phase. Jim -- http://blogs.sun.com/jimgris/
