On Nov 7, 2007, at 01:01, Roy T. Fielding wrote: > > The only people who can vote on a release are the people who > are the core contributors that produced that release. It is > a majority vote of those core contributors. > > If you have people that are named as core contributors and yet > have nothing to do with producing the release, then the > community is not scoped correctly. > > Every discussion here over the past three weeks could have been > quickly resolved within the existing constitutional framework. > Most would not have even arisen if the communities were doing > their work on the public lists instead of internal Sun meetings. > Writing a new constitution will not help the people who don't > bother to read the current one. Leadership is something that > people do *within* a governance framework, not because of it. > > BTW, Sun's binary distribution is called Solaris. OpenSolaris > doesn't have a binary distribution because Sun's executives > did not want one (at least not until very recently). Any > suggestion that the OGB or governance model is somehow > responsible for the lack of such a distribution is absurd > and wholly ignorant of this project's history. > > Likewise, the "benevolent dictator" model was proposed several > times, by me, and was unanimously rejected every time by all > parties concerned. A benevolent dictatorship is a very efficient > model of governance right up to the point where the dictator > moves on to other things, after which the project fails or enters > a several-year process of forking until a new dictator emerges. > Sun specifically opposed the models of Darwin or MySQL, neither > of which support open development. > > Engineering at Sun is much more consensus-driven than the other > examples. People simply need to learn a new tradition of moving > that consensus-driving process onto the public lists.
I completely agree with all of that, Roy, especially the last paragraph. S.
