On 05/11/2007, James Carlson <james.d.carlson at sun.com> wrote: > Shawn Walker writes: > > On 05/11/2007, Bill Sommerfeld <sommerfeld at sun.com> wrote: > > > We have no shortage of "visionaries" in this community. What we are > > > short on are people who can set aside their own personal vision for > > > where to take opensolaris, and instead listen to others and build > > > consensus around where our visions overlap. > > > > The problem with that viewpoint is that consensus is rarely achieved; > > at least not in a clear manner. > > > > I think there's a good reason why companies have CEOs, boards have > > directors, etc. They ensure consensus can be achieved and that there > > is a consistent direction and vision. > > It may well be a structural problem with OpenSolaris, but a quick > check of the OpenSolaris constitution shows that no such individual > role exists. > > Instead, community-wide issues must be decided by community-wide votes > (section 3.1), and the OGB (a board rather than a single indvidual) > represents the community for day-to-day operation. > > At least when it comes to formal structures like this, I think it's > probably wise to use the structure as written, rather than inventing > things that we may wish existed but that do not. Doing the latter, or > just assuming it into existence, risks chaos. > > In other words, if you disagree with the absence of a single > individual serving as the ultimate decision maker, then please do > propose an amendment to the constitution and get it enacted. That way > we can start believing in a King rather than running code.
Careful, you may get more than you bargained for :) -- Shawn Walker, Software and Systems Analyst http://binarycrusader.blogspot.com/ "We don't have enough parallel universes to allow all uses of all junction types--in the absence of quantum computing the combinatorics are not in our favor..." --Larry Wall
