Alan Coopersmith wrote:
> Garrett D'Amore wrote:
>
>> 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.)
>>
>
> I'm glad to see you're interested in reshaping the OGB and will thus
> presumably be taking some role in the upcoming election, either as a
> candidate or someone with some serious questions to ask the candidates.
> (Though of course, as a fellow Sun employee, I must urge you to think
> long and hard before becoming a candidate, as it could have serious
> consequences on your career at Sun if you plan on delivering mandates
> and ultimatums such as the one you suggest. Going on the record to
> publicly speak against the decisions of your employers upper management
> can be quite career limiting at any company, and Sun is no exception.)
>
>
Believe me, when I say I understand the pickle that some of the OGB
members may find themselves in. However, I honestly do not believe
that the top management have said anything that is fundamentally
contrary to the interests of the community. The community may be
unhappy with the whole Indiana/OpenSolaris debacle, but I suspect that
the problem here was one of poor execution (not involving the community
more in the decision, and perhaps premature branding), rather than
something that is fundamentally at odds with the community.
I have not decided whether to run or not, in any case. I ran last time,
and I'll admit over the past couple of months I've breathed a sigh of
relief that I wasn't elected. :-) I sort of doubt I'd get elected in
any case... I've said some things that are unpopular, and as someone
more inclined to speak (or type) his mind without paying careful
attention to all of the sensibilities involved, I doubt I have much
future in politics. :-) Fortunately, its also true that I believe at
least my direct management understands this about me, and would be
supportive of me if I were to use my own judgment, perhaps making
official decisions that are unpopular with senior management.
And indeed, the one good thing about Sun here is that it already has a
history of allowing employees to speak their minds, at least internally,
in ways that may be unpopular with the senior management. I think
anyone who has served on an ARC knows what I'm talking about...
rejecting a case that is technically unsound, but very popular with the
business teams, can be a challenging course of action to take. But I've
seen it happen a few times at Sun, and ultimately, I believe that the
company is stronger for it. Its this kind of approach that is one of
the reasons that I worked hard to be able to come back to Sun, even
while still employed at General Dynamics.
What I do hope that Sun understands is that the OGB is a
community-elected body, and is answerable (in their OGB duties) to the
community. One significant drawback, is that as an individual
contributor with no direct votes, Sun has little direct influence (or
should have, if we followed the constitution and charter strictly) over
the community. It seems to me that it should be possible for Sun to
name a representative, who could then run for a position on the board as
with the other candidates. I know that I'd vote for such an official
representative, because I think it is critical that Sun have some form
of direct representation on the board. (And I suspect many others
would agree that having an official Sun rep on the OGB would be a good
thing. Sun is after all, the biggest contributor to this project, even
though it has no direct representation.) Relying on individual OGB
members who, for the most part, ran on their individual merits and
beliefs, rather than as Sun representatives, seems like a recipe for
unhappiness both on Sun's and on the individual members' parts.
-- Garrett
