(Hopefully it's obvious, but just in case...) I don't think meetings should be held in secret, etc.
Take today's meeting for example. Glynn recorded and promptly posted the minutes. And future meetings should be even more open than that. Personally, I like the idea of simply making additional slots available on the concall (as suggested below and elsewhere). Eric On Wed, 4 Apr 2007, johansen-osdev at sun.com wrote: > I agree with Keith and Ben. There's no reason for the OGB to > hold its meetings in secret. Those who would like to observe how the > OGB conducts its business should be free to do so. > > Transparency is necessary for accountability. If other community > members aren't able to observe how their elected representative are > behaving, it's impossible to determine if their interests are being > properly represented. > > I'm also not suggesting that an inflexible solution should be adopted. > However, don't believe that meetings should be held in secret. This could > be achieved by making additional slots available on the concall, through > audio recording, or by a un-edited written transcript. The exact method > chosen is far less important than the ability to determine who said and > did what. It will be difficult for community members to take their > representatives to account without the ability to observe the > OGB's proceedings. > > -j > > On Wed, Apr 04, 2007 at 06:37:38PM -0700, Keith M Wesolowski wrote: >> On Wed, Apr 04, 2007 at 08:32:30PM -0500, Eric Boutilier wrote: >> >>> +1. And to throw in 2 more cents: I think it's safe to assume that the >>> prevention of OGB-Paralysis -- like what resulted from the inflexibility >>> demonstrated at today's meeting due to the invocation of a strict >>> intepretation of the letter of section 6.7 -- is a very strong and >>> universal desire. Therefore an agile resolution (read non-complex, >>> non-resource-intensive, and, perhaps, non-perfect resolution) to this issue >>> is called for. >> >> Forgive me for being defensive, but I don't believe this >> interpretation is incorrect, nor that that it led to any form of >> paralysis. We'll be meeting next week, same bat-time, same >> bat-channel - only this time you and others will be able to listen in >> and perhaps even ask questions. If we'd gone ahead with our meeting, >> there would undoubtedly have been complaints that we're not >> sufficiently open; that's not a good way to start the year. >> >> -- >> Keith M Wesolowski "Sir, we're surrounded!" >> FishWorks "Excellent; we can attack in any direction!" >> _______________________________________________ >> ogb-discuss mailing list >> ogb-discuss at opensolaris.org >> http://opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/ogb-discuss >
