Alan Burlison writes: > The word "endorse" appears nowhere in the Constitution, what does appear
That's true, but I also don't see where it says that the OGB, with responsibility for the day-to-day governance of OpenSolaris, cannot set up a project instantiation policy that _does_ use this or other words necessary to get the job done. We'll be pretty poor if we have to limit ourselves to the words that appear in the constitution. It's a short document. > is a statement that says that Projects are set up and disbanded by CGs > as necessary to achieve the aims of the CG. In my mind at least that > has a strong whiff of ownership. In addition, the establishment and The current instantiation mechanism, as best I can tell, conforms with the existing constitution. It provides a clear means for community groups to instantiate and disband groups: they do so by applying or removing "endorsement" to those projects, as specified in the policy. > closure of Projects is via a vote of the members of the relevant CG, and > that clearly implies that a single CG is responsible for a Project. I > don't much care what word we use, but the current "sponsors" sitation > clearly doesn't work and needs to be discontinued. That's a reasonable position and a proposal for a change in policy, and something we can address at our next OGB meeting. I do not, however, see that either policy is mandated by the constitution. -- 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
