Glynn Foster wrote:
> Garrett D'Amore wrote:
>
>> I do like the ideas espoused by others, which is that perhaps we need to
>> split the engineering from non-engineering groups, to ensure that one
>> group can't unfairly dominate the other.
>>
>
> So where does the OGB stand? Does it get elected by the engineering group, or
> the non-engineering group? Or both?
>
> What is the perceived domination? It's pretty clear that the people doing the
> work in any given area, are the ones most responsible for making decisions.
>
But that's not the way the constitution was written. It may have been
the *intent* of the authors, but the language gives ultimate control to
the CCs who vote. If they don't like the OGB, then they can cast out
the OGB with a new election. Yes, it would take an overwhelming
majority to do just that, but if one group has such a majority, then I
get concerned.
For the democracy that I think was intended to work, there has to to be
reasonable controls (checks and balances is what I recall from high
school government classes) on the power held by any one body.
> Sure, other groups could (and probably should) have an opportunity to
> influence
> decisions but ultimately it's up to the key stakeholders to figure out the
> right
> direction. I'm sure Sun would shut down the constitution pretty darn fast if
> there was a set of irresponsible amendments to it where one community group,
> for
> example Advocacy, was dominant - that's not in anyone's best interests, not
> even
> the Advocacy group.
>
I don't think even Sun has that power anymore. It could revoke the
right use the trademark, I suppose. It could "take its toys and go
home". But the core constitution and the code that has already been
released does not strictly require Sun's continued participation.
(Though, if Sun did abandon the group, I think it would shrivel and die
pretty darn quickly.)
Anyway, I really hope we can avoid ever having to deal with such a
scenario. I think some kind of check-and-balance on power is needed.
Alternatively, truly separating the governance of the engineering and
the advocacy groups from each other seems a good idea. Some kinds of
engineering decisions should not, IMO, be subject to the whim of
non-engineering folks, and I'm not sure that engineers should really
have that much say in matters like branding or user group organization.
I guess this is why at big companies the Engineering and Sales
organizations are totally separate, and usually don't share a reporting
structure until you get to at least an executive VP level.
-- Garrett
