Brian Gupta wrote: > It has become increasingly apparent, that our sponsor, Sun > Microsystems, feels that it is vital to their business interests, that > they produce and support an Operating System named "OpenSolaris". I am > of the opinion that I agree with Sun's assessment of their situation. > > We (Sun and the community) are in a small predicament due to this > situation, as that particular trademark is already in use by this > community, to describe itself, and to describe the code base this > community manages. Since the founding goals of the community were not > to produce binaries, and were not to allow any distro to name itself > "OpenSolaris", we have recently seen much anguish in the community. > > I would like to offer a number of proposals, that would aim rectify > the situation of naming an open development community after our > sponsor's most dear assets. (Sun Microsystems' Solaris TM) > > Proposal #1 OGB should use Board Committees: > ----------------------------------------------------------------------- > I propose that the OGB take advantage of "Board Committees" to take a > more active role in governing the community. Understanding that the > OGB has only so many hours, the instinct is to push decisions to a CG. > I feel that this is not always the best course of action. The OGB > should look at taking up some of these broader issues, and deal with > them through committees. This would allow the community as a whole to > govern itself more effectively, and allow the OGB to take on a newer > active role. > > >From the Constitution: > "6.12. Board Committees. The OGB may designate, by resolution adopted > by an affirmative vote of a majority of the OGB members, any number of > Board Committees, each consisting of at least one OGB member and > composed of persons appointed by the OGB from time to time. Each > committee, to the extent provided in such authorizing resolution, > shall have and may exercise all the power and authority of the OGB in > the management of the business and affairs of the OpenSolaris > Community within the limits imposed by the Charter." > Ironically I've been thinking this myself and just brought it up on the list before reading this mail. So, ya, I agree.
> Proposal #3 OGB instantiate a "Trademark Committee" > -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- > I feel the whole Naming issue is best handled by the OGB, vs. a single > CG. I propose that the OGB instantiates a Naming Board Committee. This > is especially needed since an appropriately scoped CG does not exist. > (If the OGB disagrees, I ask that the OGB instead state which CG it > feels is the appropriate CG to handle these issues. > I agree that there should be a "Trademark Committee", ut not a "Naming Committee"... these are not the same thing, at least, they won't be in the near term future. A CG's organization is required but a CG itself is too heavy weight, therefore I agree that comittees are the appropriate forum. Clearly we can see, I think, that mailing lists don't work well for these sorts of discussions whereas con-calls do. > Proposal #3 OGB Investigate renaming the community to a name that does > not contain our Sponsor's Trademarks > --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- > I would propose that the OGB investigates renaming the existing > community with a new trademark, that doesn't utilize any Sun > trademarks. (The new trademarks would be held by a small outfit, that > only exists to hold and enforce the trademark). > Because this project is of vital importance to the identity of the > entire community, I would ask that the OGB itself sponsor/lead this > project. (Possibly through another "board committee") > Without a legal entity such as a non-profit foundation, or something, this isn't realistic. Furthermore, I don't believe that the situation is so grim as to consider renaming the "OpenSolaris Community" to something else. The name/brand is established and is gonna stick... this really is the underlying reason that we got into this "problem" in the first place. I would, however be willing to re-evaluate my position if you can further develop this idea. benr.
