On Thu, 14 Feb 2008, John Sonnenschein wrote:
>
> On 14-Feb-08, at 5:20 PM, John Beck wrote:
>
>> JS> It's already apparent that Sun
>> JS> doesn't care what the communities opinion is...
>>
>> While Sun's actions may seem like those of a heartless person, Sun is
>> a company, not a person, and I can assure you that there are many people
>> employed by Sun who care a great deal about the community and the opinions
>> of its members. Even the executives who made the decisions that triggered
>> this whole debate care what people in the community think, although they
>> also have a responsibility to Sun stock holders to care about profits, and
>> they have a balancing act to perform. It has been well documented that
>> many decisions were badly explained and in hindsight many things should
>> have been done differently, but it does not help to paint with such a
>> broad brush. I think it would be more helpful to stop (not picking on
>> you personally; I mean everyone) with the platitudes and let's all get
>> back to coding and making OpenSolaris the OS of the future.
>
> Don't get me wrong, I'm not accusing all employees of sun of not caring. Many
> of them do care immensely about the ideals of open source and the community,
> but Sun as a legal entity... doesn't
>
> The OGB's job is to govern, not to offer an opinion on what the government
> does every now and again, so it's time for them to step up to the plate and
> govern.
>
> Dissolution of the Indiana Project as an OpenSolaris community project may
> be a bit of a nuclear option, but it's the biggest bargaining chip we have
Hi John Sonnenschein (and hello jbeck),
John S - while I find your "nuclear option" intrigueing - this is not
the time to launch a "nuclear" strike. The issue at hand is just not
that severe to justify the user of that type, or degree, of force.
What we have here is a disagreement - mainly caused by a small number
of Sun employees who figured that they could ride roughshod over the
community and bully everyone standing in their way, or those who did
not agree with their positions or opinions. Obviously, by the degree
of the "mess" (wild understatement) and trail of destruction they
created, they were unsuccessfull. They have been unsuccessful in the
eyes of the community and also, more importantly, they have been
unsuccessful in the eyes of Sun management (including senior
management). Believe me when I tell you that there is unilateral
consensus that a small number of people (who shall remain anonymous)
have created a *mess* of biblical proportions and a political
nightmare. Does that mean that we are going to see their boss publish
something to a public list that reads: "Joe Foobar is a complete a$$
and he has pissed everyone off and we are considering firing his a$$".
Or are we going to see their boss publish an email with language like
"we realize that this could/should have been handled better"?
Remember - a good boss will always support his/her subordinates,
especially in the face of criticism. Of course, if Joe Foobar had
been publicly whipped and humiliated - it would be much easier to
believe that Sun has learned from this "series of unfortunate events".
But, in Corporate Speak - Sun has already stated *exactly* that.
We've already received our "pound of flesh". Do you still not
understand what we have been told? Here it is again (not quoted
exactly): "this situation could have been handled better". Got it?
That is all the *satisfaction* we'll receive from Sun management.
Otherwise we would have seen, in Corporate Speak, a statement like
"... and Sun stands by and fully supports Joe Foobar going
forward...".
So we don't have to "retaliate" by becoming a godzilla and creating an
equally large path of destruction to the OpenSolaris Project aka the
"nuclear option". Its completely unnecessary.
Consider this entire mess, and, believe me, its a *total* *mess*, an
accident best viewed in your rear-view mirror. Depart the area and
try to behave like nothing happened! I'm serious - you can't undo
previous events. You can't undo an accident - even if it was caused
by a few people acting irresponsibily. You pick up the pieces and
move on.
I would urge the OGB to simply publish another Position Paper. They
understand how the community feels. They understand more of Suns
position than the community at large understands - since they have
been able to have detailed consultations with the Sun representatives.
And what should the resulting AI (Action Item(s)) be from the position
paper? IMHO - there are *no* action items. It is simply a case of
recording the communities dis-satisfaction with the course of events
and accepting that the "situation could have been handled better".
Don't kid yourself. Has the OGB learned from this *mess*? Yes. Has
Sun management learned from this mess? Yes. Have the people
responsible for "poorly handling" this situation learned from the mess
they created? Yes. Will they seek community input before they create
another *mess*? Maybe. Will they remain Sun employees if they create
another *mess* of this proportion? Probably not.
So IMHO, the OGB does not need any further community input to
formulate and publish a Position Paper. They already have *hundreds*
of opinions. Time will tell if the communities objections were/are
accurate in terms of the future health of the Project.
I urge the OGB to create and publish a Position Paper ASAP. This will
put an end to this mess. Then we can move on. And write code! :)
PS: John S - I've been very impressed by your passion for the Project
and your ability to express your thoughts. And I really like your
"take no prisoners" attitude. I'd like to see you run for the next
OGB. If you decide to run - you'll definately get my vote! :)
Regards,
Al Hopper Logical Approach Inc, Plano, TX. al at logical-approach.com
Voice: 972.379.2133 Fax: 972.379.2134 Timezone: US CDT
OpenSolaris Governing Board (OGB) Member - Apr 2005 to Mar 2007
http://www.opensolaris.org/os/community/ogb/ogb_2005-2007/
