[Splitting this up to cover individual policies.] On Sat, Apr 4, 2009 at 4:10 PM, John Plocher <john.plocher at gmail.com> wrote: > On Fri, Apr 3, 2009 at 1:50 PM, Michelle Olson <michelle.olson at sun.com> > wrote: >>> * OGB 2008/001 Statement of the OGB class of 2008's "can-do" >>> attitude and approach to governance >> >> I think we should rescind this policy > > Why? Has our attitude changed? What parts of > We value openness and transparency, > we prefer delegation and empowerment, > we will strive to be enablers, facilitators and behind-the-scenes > troubleshooters, and > we intend to focus on making things work and getting things done > > no longer applies? Are you saying we don't want to be open and > transparent? We won't delegate or empower? We would rather nobody > else did anything because we 7 could do it better? That we'd rather > talk and argue rather than do? > >> My very first draft of such a mission statement is as follows: >> >> Our mission is to enable OpenSolaris contributors to participate more >> independently, > > What actionable items can the OGB do as an OGB to make this happen? > What roadblocks exist that the 7 of us can remove with our OGB hats > on? Other than the constitution cleanup, everything I can think of is > the responsibility of some other OS.o community or other, which is as > it should be. The fact that we may also be members of those other > communities doesn't mean we can hijack the OGB to become an extension > of those communities or make it into a bully pulpit - the OGB works > best when it empowers others to do things, it fails the most when it > tries to force people to do things the OGB's way. > >> track and manage the bugs they file and fix more efficiently, > > Not the purview of the OGB. I wish it was, but AlanB has told us many > times that the webapp, bugtracker, source control... stuff is all > controlled by Bonnie's group and maybe the website and tools > communities, not the OGB. > >> access and contribute the software they need more readily, > > Again, this is where Projects and Community Groups come into play - > *they* do those things, not the OGB. The OGB can help make it easier > to create new projects and CGs, but the day to day operation of them > once created is not under our control. > >> document their projects more effectively > > ... Sounds like the docs community, not the OGB, unless the docs > community is dysfunctional and feuding with others, at which point the > OGB gets to step in... > >> and provide a place to ask questions and promote >> their contributions. > > Asking questions about what? The OGB isn't the right forum to ask > questions about general opensolaris code, tools, website, packaging, > zones, zfs, drivers, distros, user groups, ... ... ... . We also > don't do contributions, we aren't the advocacy CG, we aren't > OpenSolaris Marketing... We only do governance, and, of course, > governance related questions *are* the right thing to bring to the > OGB.
I agree with John. As such, I've drafted 2009/001 http://wiki.genunix.org/wiki/index.php/OGB_2009/001 which is essentially a copy of 2008/001, because I believe the values expressed there are good. This expresses our philosophy, how we go about things, not what we intend to do. I've added an extra phrase to provoke discussion. Because I believe the OGB has to become more visible and more proactive: "We will be more prominent as advocates of our community and its values, both to those inside our community and those outside it." -- -Peter Tribble http://www.petertribble.co.uk/ - http://ptribble.blogspot.com/
