Garrett D'Amore wrote: > A strongly worded mandate would be better than remaining quiet on it. > Ultimately, the tools we need to manage code commits must be openly > available. One thing OGB can do is form a task group or committee to > work on addressing this need if it appears that a resolution on the Sun > internal tool is not forthcoming. > > An OGB that is completely impotent to enact or enforce anything is not > terribly useful, and I think it would be good for all involved if the > OGB became a little more proactive versus reactive. (In other words, I > think we ... by that I mean myself and I believe many other members of > the community ... expect OGB to fill more than just a judicial role for > the community at large.) > The charter and the constitution are seemingly at odds here. The charter leaves a fairly broad view (IMHO) for what the OGB's role and responsibilities are, in other words: a more proactive role. The constitution that the community voted into place pretty strictly defines the OGB's role as a reactive/judicial role, and the OGB - for better or for worse - has stood by that measure so far this term.
-steve -- stephen lau | stevel at opensolaris.org | www.whacked.net
