Eric Boutilier writes: > 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.
No ... the worry was that we're talking about the fate of the common areas of the web site here. Not the project pages (over which the projects have control, subject to applicable laws) or the community pages (over which the communities exercise control, under similar conditions), but rather things such as http://www.opensolaris.org/. That page ought to be reflective of the work of the entire community, and not just the output of one group that was _not_ elected to represent the community. Thus, the decision was between having a community group granted special and exclusive powers over those common areas, and a separate committee that could referee change proposals made by communities (or projects). The latter made more sense to me at the time because: - The OGB itself has responsibility to represent the overall OpenSolaris community, and the authority to do so based on the election, but an individual community group is not necessarily answerable in its actions to the OGB nor to the OpenSolaris community itself. A committee established by the OGB is answerable to the OpenSolaris member's representatives. - A community group has the power to endorse projects, which would have us in the very strange position of allowing a single community group to pick individual projects to endorse and (presumably) give special access to the content of the common areas. No other community group would have any say over this, nor would the OGB itself, save to simply disband the group; something we've been quite hesitant in doing. In case it's somehow _not_ clear, I'll say again that I'm quite willing to reconsider. I'd like to understand how the community group will perform the job better or more fairly. Discussion of tools to be used, the layout and mechanics of the site, and the general infrastructure are one thing, but the content is quite another. > > 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... It's different, because (a) the powers of a commitee are different and (b) the reporting structure is different. > 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. So where were these people when this proposal was being discussed? Is it just a matter of crossed wires, or did the OGB discussion of the proposal not matter to them? > I hope I'm wrong, and I'm just going on total instinct here, but > stifling this particular initiative feels like a big mistake. If only it were the only one. -- James Carlson, Solaris Networking <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 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 _______________________________________________ website-discuss mailing list [email protected]
