On Feb 19, 2008 11:19 AM, Keith M Wesolowski <keith.wesolowski at sun.com> wrote: > On Tue, Feb 19, 2008 at 11:11:12AM -0800, Justin Erenkrantz wrote: > > > If the OGB is not enforcing such a reporting scheme, then I think this > > would be a very good thing to do. If a CG can't be bothered to file > > reports on a regular basis, they likely don't deserve to exist. -- > > While I agree, I'm curious whether and why you believe CGs are > analogous generally to Apache Projects.
I do think they are more or less similar - and that shouldn't be a shock because the OpenSolaris Constitution was heavily influenced by what became Apache's structure. =) Taking a look at the constitution for a sec: --- ARTICLE VII. Community Groups 7.1. Purpose. In order to promote a diversity of activities within the OpenSolaris Community and to provide a means for self-governance within those activities, the OpenSolaris Community is held to be composed of Community Groups that are initiated by the OGB for the purpose of focused management and accomplishment of a given set of activities. Community Groups are, in turn, responsible for initiating and managing projects to accomplish those activities. --- If the CGs aren't reporting in some form back to the OGB, then it's impractical for the OGB to know what's going on - other than subscribing to every list and doing micro-management. That simply doesn't scale. (In the early days of Apache, we didn't do the reporting scheme; but we've now learned that it's essential - and is often as good for the community writing the report as it is to the Board to know what's going on.) More broadly, the CGs don't have a license to do whatever they choose to do - they are still responsible to the OGB in demonstrating that they are following 'the purpose of focused management and accomplishment of a given set of activities'. A reporting scheme would demonstrate that. -- justin
