Ben Rockwood wrote: > I've been asked at least 3 times for my agenda items, so I'll disclose > them here. They are currently pending the next "regular meeting" of the > board to occur on Jan 30th: > > > Item 1: Limited Discussion regarding status of statement from Mr. > Franklin; possible resultant motion to remove OGB from that discussion > as it appears to be dead and fruitless. Argument: If Sun (via Mr. > Franklin) makes some statement it is not for the OGB to confer on or > consider as official business until such time as the statement is > publicly made; the matter should be publicly and formally removed from > the OGB agenda. Result: This is a point of order, given consensus issue > is dropped from future discussion or debate and permanently taken off > "the table"; whether formal motion or simple consensus is based on the > Chairmans discretion.
I think we'll probably have to schedule a private call for this, or have a few minutes at the end of the normal public call for private OGB business - otherwise it becomes a little too hard to discuss. I don't think it's dead or fruitless FWIW - they are non-trivial, time consuming issues, and we probably need to schedule another call with Bill. > Item 2: Main Motion (benr01), language follows: 'I move that all > existing references to "leader" on OpenSolaris.org, when referring to > persons with the ability to modify web content, be changed to "editor."' I agree - though as far as I remember, it's a non-trivial change in the web infrastructure. Maybe you can take an action item to talk to the website-discuss alias (or Alan Burlison) to see if they are willing to investigate that proposed change? > Item 3: Main Motion (benr02), language follows: 'In adhering to the > OpenSolaris Constitution with respects to Article 7, Section 6 regarding > Community Group Records; I move to require all Community Groups to > supply the 3 required members lists - Contributors, Core Contributors, > and Emeritus Contributors, also denoting the OGB Facilitator - on their > respective central community group web pages. Community Groups that > fail to fulfill this requirement within 30 days shall be terminated in > accordance with Article 7, Section 12 regarding Community Group > Termination.' All the grants are available through http://poll.opensolaris.org - they are the up to date lists for each Community Group. Some of the grants may not reflect the current activity in those Community Groups, but I sent out an email earlier this week suggesting that now was a good time to fresh those lists. I agree that getting these lists on the Community Group pages would be a good thing - we just need to figure out what work is involved, and who might do it. These things (in my opinion) are best left to casual discussions with the right people, rather than formal motions from the OGB. We can ask, we should not demand. > Item 5: (Optional, Time Permitting) Limited Discussion regarding > OpenSolaris.org Content Creation and relation to recently enacted > Content Review Committee. Argument: I submit that the Content Review > Committee is ineffective; rather, a Community Group show be formed > around the existing content creators in an effort to bring > OpenSolaris.org content generation into the community consistent with > F/OSS ideals. If the "community" is generating content there is no > requirement for community review of the content as a separate entity and > it bring OpenSolaris.org under true community control. > NOTE: Private discussions would likely need to occur to get existing > content creators on board such that a proper main motion could be > submitted creating the CG and seeding the initial core contribs. I think the result of the discussion from last week's meeting was to continue with the editorial committee (assuming it gets the required make up of the right people), and give them an action item of where their charter is, and whether they believe they can fulfill that charter. If they come back and can't, then we can figure out the next step. > PLEASE NOTE!!! I strongly believe that the purpose of a deliberative > body is to act, not just talk. Therefore I will send forward motions > even if I believe that they will fail. The record of failed motions is > just as important, and in some ways more so, than those that pass. I > furthermore do not feel that votes need be unanimous, in many cases if > motions are passing unanimously its a sign that too much time is being > wasted on politicing an issue to death rather than moving the issue > along. Motions can always be introduced to re-raise a failed question > (motion) or to strike down one that is no longer appropriate. Indeed - I'm supportive of a pro-active contributing OGB. I worry that the impression of casting forth motion after motion will make us no friends, and get in the way of good, productive discussion with the right people. Very few of these need the OGB involvement - we just need to raise awareness and hope that some volunteer is going to come along. Glynn
