> To expect Bill to make > public > statements is to deny the OGB that > constitutionally-mandated role, > and to expect Bill to conduct a public discussion > about Sun's > business with all and sundry is an unreasonable > expectation in my view.
I can understand that one. Though there is something fishy about Sun employees on the OGB talking privately to Sun employees representing Sun that I can't easily expound upon. Glynn wrote: > I think it's ok that the new OGB members will get to see the old archives - > they'll be under the same gentleman's agreement as the previous OGB. It is ironic to me that you use the term "gentleman's agreement", because private discussion between any governors can quickly turn into cliquish gossip about the plebes; a gentleman's club if you will. Casper wrote: > There are lots of things we cannot discuss in the open; any discussion about persons for one. That makes me scratch my head. The OGB needs to talk in private about people? Who? Why? That leads me to this: Rich Teer wrote: > Private and sensitive issues were exactly why the ogb-private > list was set up. The intent is that all discussion that aren't of > a sensitive nature take place on ogb-discuss. For a private list to remain, I suggest you guys rigorously define what is allowed and not allowed on the private OGB list. It should be kept to a minimum, and "sensitive nature" should be defined for the public to see. And to enforce such a rule, I imagine another rule would need to be in place allowing an OGB member to take some action on the allegedly rule-breaking comment. I don't like politicking and I don't like political overhead. But if you are going to have these things anyway, I do think that systems need to be in place to maintain fairness, prevent corruption, and prevent the contradiction that is closed governance in an open community. MC -- This message was posted from opensolaris.org
