James Carlson wrote: > > When we were at the point of discussing the overlap between the > proposed new community group and the already-approved committee, I was > swayed by Keith's argument that having a committee reporting to the > OGB for the content of the common areas was preferable to having any > one community group be in charge, because community groups don't have > control over each other. >
My take on this argument is that keeping a community group from getting out of line vs. a committee is merely slightly harder for the OGB to do. (The OGB has "hiring and firing" authority over CG's) Therefore, the advantages of Alan's proposal outweigh (far outweigh in my opinion) the advantages of the committee. If the worry was this: "Why set up a CG if it might have to be dissolved later", see my last paragraph below. > > The alternative rejected was abolishing the > (still unformed) committee and granting one community group the > editorial role -- on behalf of all of OpenSolaris. > Using the same argument above, isn't granting one CG the editorial role only slightly different in this regard (and in practical effect, probably completely irrelevant) than granting a committee the same thing? Especially when the specifics and source of Alan's proposal are taken into account... Personally the thing that disappoints me about the OGB's decision is we had some important positive inertia underway, populated by a group of people possessing a good mix of vantage points and proven integrity and track records: Jim Grisanzio, Alan Burlison, Patrick Finch, Barbara Lundquist, Stephen Hahn, Stephen Lau, and Sara Dornsife. I hope I'm wrong, and I'm just going on total instinct here, but stifling this particular initiative feels like a big mistake. Eric > > That left us with either approving the proposal without the content > role, rejecting the proposal outright, or sending it back to the > author, who was not present at the open meeting. > > Given that the author can _always_ come back with a counter-proposal, > I see no lasting harm that was done by amending the original proposal > and approving that amended version. > > I don't think we're being "a giant dick" about it. Instead, we chose > an option that allows the submitter to choose what to do: either go > ahead with the narrower solution, or strike that and come up with > something else more to his liking. We certainly have not said that > changes are somehow impossible. > > That's really not all that different from what would happen if we sent > it back to the author, except that there's an already-approved > variation now available, should the author want it. >
