On Nov 26, 2007 4:12 PM, Keith M Wesolowski <keith.wesolowski at sun.com> wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 26, 2007 at 12:24:39AM -0800, Roy T. Fielding wrote: > > > Umm, for future reference, it is senseless to vote on doing nothing. > > Yep. It's actually out of order. At some point I just don't feel > there's anything to be gained by always being the guy piping up with > points of order, so I let it go. The intent was clear, to defeat my > motion. > > > Do something. I only picked Desktop because of the original > > Indiana proposal. If you want to be fair, then dissolve *all* of > > the communities and replace them with one Group per cohesive set > > of related projects. Finally, institute a feedback mechanism: > > require that each Group report to the OGB every three months > > and identify what it is they are "governing" and why they should > > continue to do so. > > At least half the Groups aren't structured in any useful way. Many > are too large and unfocused. The Groups we need most (those which > would be caretakers of releaseable artifacts, namely consolidations) > don't exist at all. Of course, Desktop could actually act like one of > those, but isn't. We could restructure it by moving its > Indiana-related activities into a different Group, but that's already > failed. I can raise motions like these every week; however, they're > clearly not going to pass, and at some point the other members will > automatically ignore me. Why be disruptive for no gain? In Parliamentary systems, the opposition exists for a reason. If the majority is out of line with the populace's needs, eventually elections happen and the opposition becomes the majority. If the loyal opposition never makes their views clear, it seems that a) the majority will be given the message that everyone is in agreement and that they are taking the best (and unanimous) course of action, and b) the greater population of those with dissenting opinions will become disenfranchised, and become disloyal opposition. (Or worse, they won't care at all). -Brian P.S. - Are projects answerable to the OGB, or do they have to be addressed through a CG? (I should think that the OGB can do what it feels is appropriate, on a case by case basis.) IE: If the OGB has an issue with certain actions taken by a project, the OGB should talk directly to the project leaders to amicably resolve the issue. (Bear me out, but I would think that any project is answerable to the OGB.) IE: It seems that the OGB could remove a project from opensolaris.org, if it felt that was necessary. Constitutionally the OGB is incredibly powerful, as there are very few actual limits placed on it's power. To date we have seen little of this power wielded. Whether that is a good thing or a bad thing, I say it is a mixed blessing. -- > Keith M Wesolowski "Sir, we're surrounded!" > FishWorks "Excellent; we can attack in any > direction!" > _______________________________________________ > ogb-discuss mailing list > ogb-discuss at opensolaris.org > http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/ogb-discuss > -- - Brian Gupta http://opensolaris.org/os/project/nycosug/ -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://mail.opensolaris.org/pipermail/ogb-discuss/attachments/20071126/970f1dab/attachment.html>
