Ben Rockwood wrote: > OGB Meetings should be open, but in any meeting its irregular for > observers to be involved. By that rationale I would suggest that so > long as actual dialog of the meeting, unedited, is available for public > review it fits the criteria for "open meeting". Making an audio > recording of the meeting available following each would be something I'd > appreciate.
I'd still like to understand why there is a belief for the meetings to be open? Is it partially based on the current level of trust [or mis-trust] that we have generated within the community, or just trying to satisfy the 'open' part of OpenSolaris and what the constitution says? What do other open source communities do for their various organizational bodies? Clearly there are benefits to an open meeting, but if we don't provide the opportunity for everyone to attend, then should we be providing it for the fortunate few? Is it likely that opening up the meetings will actually have a side effect of making the meeting less productive for the OGB members who are tasked? Will it cause them to be worried about what they say will later be quoted by the press, and thus never really give the opportunity for saying what we think, as opposed to what's politically correct? I know which I prefer. Don't get me wrong, I'm not trying to make the argument that we shouldn't be in open - everyone here wants to be open as much as possible. But we also have to use what's currently available to us, be responsible for the trust given to us during the recent election, and make some progress on the real issues. I would hate for limitations in our infrastructure to get in the way of progress. It's needless energy wasted in what really needs to be an important year for the project. Anyway, more importantly, who's action is this to go do our homework on what infrastructure is available to handle this? Glyn
