Alan Coopersmith writes: > If Sun management has decided it wants to move from the democratic > model of open source project to the benevolent dictator model, it > needs to come out and say so. As Shawn pointed out, other projects > have worked that way - certainly Ubuntu has managed to make it work > with the core source of funding also being the final decision maker, > but only because it was clear from day 1 that was the way things > worked in their community.
I agree that having these things better coordinated and having more information about intent would help. I don't think I agree that our current constitution allows for a dictator, benevolent or otherwise. Should Sun's management actually announce that this is in fact what it wants to do, that sounds exactly like the kind of community-wide change that the current constitution says requires a community-wide decision -- i.e., a vote. I agree that such a change could work. It's one of many possible answers. OpenSolaris, though, currently isn't the same thing as Sun. I think it's great that Sun's management has plans to do things that include the OpenSolaris community, and that they've let us use the name at least up until now. However, if it turns out that the wider community (whose voice has not yet been heard) does not agree with a change in direction, then we (the OGB) have an obligation to follow that instead. In other words, I'd very much like to hear what Sun's management intends to do here, but I cannot agree that they actually get the last word -- at least within the context of the community itself. That ship sailed when OpenSolaris itself was launched. -- James Carlson, Solaris Networking <james.d.carlson at sun.com> Sun Microsystems / 35 Network Drive 71.232W Vox +1 781 442 2084 MS UBUR02-212 / Burlington MA 01803-2757 42.496N Fax +1 781 442 1677
