From fielding at gbiv.com Fri Jul 7 03:38:33 2006 From: fielding at gbiv.com (Roy T. Fielding) Date: Fri, 7 Jul 2006 03:38:33 -0700 Subject: [cab-discuss] Attempt at Draft 02 In-Reply-To: <7B14178A-49DF-4C0A-83CD-E193A4018E33@gbiv.com> References: <7B14178A-49DF-4C0A-83CD-E193A4018E33@gbiv.com> Message-ID: I have completed work on a Draft 02 of the constitution at http://www.genunix.org/wiki/index.php/OpenSolaris_Governance_Draft_02 It would be nice if folks could read through it and write down comments, preferably in email or the discussion page, prior to our next meeting (Wednesday 7/12 ?). I'll try to go through saved mail from earlier drafts and check for comments that still apply, but that is unlikely given that it is now a complete document in the traditional form of bylaws. ....Roy From benr at cuddletech.com Sat Jul 8 01:54:17 2006 From: benr at cuddletech.com (Ben Rockwood) Date: Sat, 08 Jul 2006 01:54:17 -0700 Subject: [cab-discuss] Con-Call, Wed 7/12 Message-ID: <44AF72B9.808@cuddletech.com> As Roy mentioned in his last mail, a con-call was noted for 7/12 in the last call, but we need to confirm that the date works for everyone. If your able to make the call please confirm your attendance so that we can get it scheduled. benr. From rich.teer at rite-group.com Sat Jul 8 16:12:44 2006 From: rich.teer at rite-group.com (Rich Teer) Date: Sat, 08 Jul 2006 16:12:44 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [cab-discuss] Con-Call, Wed 7/12 In-Reply-To: <44AF72B9.808@cuddletech.com> References: <44AF72B9.808@cuddletech.com> Message-ID: On Sat, 8 Jul 2006, Ben Rockwood wrote: > As Roy mentioned in his last mail, a con-call was noted for 7/12 in the last > call, but we need to confirm that the date works for everyone. If your able > to make the call please confirm your attendance so that we can get it > scheduled. This coming wednesday works for me. -- Rich Teer, SCNA, SCSA, OpenSolaris CAB member President, Rite Online Inc. Voice: +1 (250) 979-1638 URL: http://www.rite-group.com/rich From al at logical-approach.com Sun Jul 9 10:12:05 2006 From: al at logical-approach.com (Al Hopper) Date: Sun, 9 Jul 2006 12:12:05 -0500 (CDT) Subject: [cab-discuss] Con-Call, Wed 7/12 In-Reply-To: <44AF72B9.808@cuddletech.com> References: <44AF72B9.808@cuddletech.com> Message-ID: On Sat, 8 Jul 2006, Ben Rockwood wrote: > As Roy mentioned in his last mail, a con-call was noted for 7/12 in the > last call, but we need to confirm that the date works for everyone. If > your able to make the call please confirm your attendance so that we can > get it scheduled. I will attend. Al Hopper Logical Approach Inc, Plano, TX. al at logical-approach.com Voice: 972.379.2133 Fax: 972.379.2134 Timezone: US CDT OpenSolaris.Org Community Advisory Board (CAB) Member - Apr 2005 OpenSolaris Governing Board (OGB) Member - Feb 2006 From fielding at gbiv.com Mon Jul 10 17:56:26 2006 From: fielding at gbiv.com (Roy T. Fielding) Date: Mon, 10 Jul 2006 17:56:26 -0700 Subject: [cab-discuss] Con-Call, Wed 7/12 In-Reply-To: <44AF72B9.808@cuddletech.com> References: <44AF72B9.808@cuddletech.com> Message-ID: On Jul 8, 2006, at 1:54 AM, Ben Rockwood wrote: > As Roy mentioned in his last mail, a con-call was noted for 7/12 in > the last call, but we need to confirm that the date works for > everyone. If your able to make the call please confirm your > attendance so that we can get it scheduled. It was implied by my mention, but just in case: yes, I can make it. ....Roy From Simon.Phipps at Sun.COM Mon Jul 10 18:15:26 2006 From: Simon.Phipps at Sun.COM (Simon Phipps) Date: Tue, 11 Jul 2006 02:15:26 +0100 Subject: [cab-discuss] Con-Call, Wed 7/12 In-Reply-To: <44AF72B9.808@cuddletech.com> References: <44AF72B9.808@cuddletech.com> Message-ID: <99C8596C-E0A3-41A6-AD1E-49CFF071E79C@Sun.COM> I will be driving back from an event but should be able to settle somewhere at call time. I suggest someone call 650 352 6327 if I don't show up, I may need extracting from concentrating on traffic. S. On Jul 8, 2006, at 09:54, Ben Rockwood wrote: > As Roy mentioned in his last mail, a con-call was noted for 7/12 in > the last call, but we need to confirm that the date works for > everyone. If your able to make the call please confirm your > attendance so that we can get it scheduled. > > > benr. > _______________________________________________ > cab-discuss mailing list > cab-discuss at opensolaris.org From fielding at gbiv.com Mon Jul 10 19:50:39 2006 From: fielding at gbiv.com (Roy T. Fielding) Date: Mon, 10 Jul 2006 19:50:39 -0700 Subject: [cab-discuss] Role of ARCs and consolidations in governance Message-ID: <518214BD-1F99-4F26-BC02-86CD670067A6@gbiv.com> I have gone through my backload of email related to the constitution and made one minor adjustment (to the definition of Abstain) that was requested some time ago. All of the rest of the comments, save one thread, are either obsolete or taken care of by http://www.genunix.org/wiki/index.php/OpenSolaris_Governance_Draft_02 The one exception is the expressed desire from several folks that the constitution contain more limitations on the OGB's powers by expressing some of the details about ARCs and c-teams and their ability to make decisions for everyone else. I found a large amount of discussion on that in my vacation backlog (June 20-24). My impression from the process discussion is that http://www.opensolaris.org/os/community/onnv/os_dev_process/ is an initial draft of an *interim* process that was developed as a means of filling the need while Sun is the governing body of ONNV. There are many terms within it that are Sun product and process- specific, and a great deal of assumptions about how OpenSolaris efforts will make decisions. None of that is reflected in the current constitution for several reasons: 1) That document has not been ratified by the community and has not been shown to be effective in practice; 2) It places normative requirements for the OpenSolaris Community as a whole that are, near as I can tell, based solely on processes, procedures, and management private to Sun; 3) It mixes organizational governance with technical decisions, which simply isn't done by any open source project (even when they are the same people); 4) It assumes that development means producing code according to a predefined set of requirements, which simply isn't broad enough to cover all of the community activities. In short, it contains a great number of policy decisions that might some day be accepted by the OpenSolaris Community and used by each Group as the justification for Group decisions. It does not, however, belong in the constitution. ARCs are a possible sticking point. Depending on who you ask, ARC decisions are either advice to the release process (i.e., a Group responsible for managing a collaboration decides that it will not integrate anything that has not passed through ARC review) or a governing body (ARC decides what a Group is allowed to do). I am going with the former (advice) view by leaving ARCs out of the constitution. Assuming that the Community eventually decides to propose a set of individuals, structure, and purpose for an OpenSolaris ARC, it can be formed by the OGB as an Architecture Group. When an ARC review shall be required is a matter of policy that can be decided by the OGB or, individually, by each Group. ARC decisions would therefore be input for all of the Core Contributors of a Group to consider when making their own decision regarding a code change. Since code changes require consensus, ARC decisions are unlikely to be ignored. Consolidations are a mixed bag of concepts, but mostly boil down to Groups and the release management projects run by those groups. I don't think there is any way for the outside world to understand why some products are grouped together as consolidations within Sun, nor do I think it is wise to try. Groups can be responsible for product families and individual companies can choose to "consolidate" those products into their own release structure as they see fit. If the OpenSolaris Community decides to create an overall release package (or more than one) by consolidating multiple products across a defined revision line, then some Group can be created to manage that "consolidation" as a product in itself. We do not need to write that into the constitution. That's my rationale -- feel free to disagree. It is easier to add restrictions to the OGB or Groups later, by amendment, after it is shown that those restrictions work in practice (or lack of them causes failure), rather than to invent restrictions in the blind and impose them on groups that are supposed to be self-governing. Cheers, Roy T. Fielding Chief Scientist, Day Software From sch at eng.sun.com Tue Jul 11 13:58:53 2006 From: sch at eng.sun.com (Stephen Hahn) Date: Tue, 11 Jul 2006 13:58:53 -0700 Subject: [cab-discuss] Attempt at Draft 02 In-Reply-To: References: <7B14178A-49DF-4C0A-83CD-E193A4018E33@gbiv.com> Message-ID: <20060711205853.GA191082@eng.sun.com> * Roy T. Fielding [2006-07-07 03:38]: > I have completed work on a Draft 02 of the constitution at > > http://www.genunix.org/wiki/index.php/OpenSolaris_Governance_Draft_02 > > It would be nice if folks could read through it and write down comments, > preferably in email or the discussion page, prior to our next meeting > (Wednesday 7/12 ?). I'll try to go through saved mail from earlier > drafts > and check for comments that still apply, but that is unlikely given that > it is now a complete document in the traditional form of bylaws. I read through the draft and I believe a few items still need some discussion, but on the whole I'm pleased with this draft. 1. The second paragraph in Article II is wide-ranging, and can be read to conflict with the Charter: The OpenSolaris Community has the authority and responsibility for all decisions pertaining to the OpenSolaris software and collaborative infrastructure, including the allocation and deallocation of resources to support development of work products of the OpenSolaris Community, provided that such decisions are not inconsistent with applicable law, regulation, and the exclusive rights of the copyright owners. In particular, one of the beliefs I've had is that distributions own the authority regarding the allocation and deallocation of their resources, even though those resources may be partcipating in a Community-wide activity. Based on my memories of the Charter review by Sun Legal, I would like some additional detail on what this paragraph is intended to specify. I also don't believe we really had the discussion regarding the "technical lead" role, but this paragraph suggests that any such role would be directed on a detailed level by the Board. 2. (Nit.) Emeritus is an adjective, so one must be an Emeritus Something or Something Emeritus; the usage in 3.3.4 is awkward. Core Contributor Emeritus is long-winded, but I make it as a suggestion. 3. I was surprised by 3.7.4, which suggests that, even after suspension or expulsion, one still has the privileges of voting and attendence. Is this retention of privilege strictly necessary? (It's also implied in the last sentence of 3.5.) 4. (Nit.) It would be nice if 4.1.1 included "teleconference" or "audioconference", as in 5.7. 5. The proxy mechanism in 4.11 applies to Elections as well as Meetings, or just to Meetings? 6. 6.4.4 introduces a Group Chair, whose role isn't really defined, whereas the Group Facilitator is well defined. I wasn't able to determine if Chair was a deliberate introduction, or a typo. If it is deliberate, then what are the Chair's responsibilities? (None are mentioned in 6.7 or 7.) 7. I kept the contents of Article VII out of the previous draft because I didn't believe that it was necessary to encode them (or any substitute) in the Constitution. I don't feel particularly strongly about including them, but I would hope to have language included that allows the OGB to add additional consensus systems without a Constitutional Amendment. 8. (Nit. ) Perhaps I'm thinking too much about small changes driven by individuals, but I believe the "Action Types" list should be reduced to not include small changes like putbacks, documentation, or design choices. Nice work. - Stephen -- Stephen Hahn, PhD Solaris Kernel Development, Sun Microsystems stephen.hahn at sun.com http://blogs.sun.com/sch/ From sch at eng.sun.com Tue Jul 11 14:01:35 2006 From: sch at eng.sun.com (Stephen Hahn) Date: Tue, 11 Jul 2006 14:01:35 -0700 Subject: [cab-discuss] Attempt at Draft 02 In-Reply-To: <20060711205853.GA191082@eng.sun.com> References: <7B14178A-49DF-4C0A-83CD-E193A4018E33@gbiv.com> <20060711205853.GA191082@eng.sun.com> Message-ID: <20060711210135.GB191082@eng.sun.com> * Stephen Hahn [2006-07-11 13:59]: > * Roy T. Fielding [2006-07-07 03:38]: > 8. (Nit. ) Perhaps I'm thinking too much about small changes driven > by individuals, but I believe the "Action Types" list should be > reduced to not include small changes like putbacks, documentation, > or design choices. Since design choices come in a variety of sizes, I guess I only mean putbacks and documentation. - Stephen From Karyn.Ritter at Sun.COM Tue Jul 11 16:27:03 2006 From: Karyn.Ritter at Sun.COM (Karyn Ritter) Date: Tue, 11 Jul 2006 16:27:03 -0700 Subject: [cab-discuss] Attempt at Draft 02 In-Reply-To: <20060711205853.GA191082@eng.sun.com> References: <7B14178A-49DF-4C0A-83CD-E193A4018E33@gbiv.com> <20060711205853.GA191082@eng.sun.com> Message-ID: <44B433C7.9060004@sun.com> I think Stephen raises excellent points here. I have a few questions that are not as substantive as Stephen's: 3.7: Do all decisions about suspension/expulsion or participants have to go through the OGB? I know Section 3.5 says that voting membership is not subject to involuntary termination (and have questions about this like Stephen Hahn does...), but can an OpenSolaris Group decide to suspend/expel a Contributor from their group? In # 2 (still in 3.7), what does it mean to suspend "participant's write access to the OpenSolaris Community infrastructure"? Is that limited to writing to the repository? Forums/Mail lists? Group pages? 5.3 (nit): In the second paragraph, I think it would be clearer to state that there is a term limit and that members who have hit the term limit can not be nominated again. The way it is written now was just unclear to me. But that may just be me. 6.4: Does this mean that all of the current "Groups" on opensolaris.org will be re-evaluated? There didn't seem to be any recognition of how existing Groups would be handled. 7.3 & 7.4: I'm not sure what references to "product release" mean. I know that I try to be very clear on opensolaris.org and any documentation that OpenSolaris is not a product. So, I'm not sure what "Product release" means here. I assume it is a reference to whatever the Group is producing. Maybe I'm the only one with this concern because I've been close to Solaris for so long. These comments/questions are also on the wiki discussion page. Thanks, Karyn Stephen Hahn wrote: > * Roy T. Fielding [2006-07-07 03:38]: > >>I have completed work on a Draft 02 of the constitution at >> >> http://www.genunix.org/wiki/index.php/OpenSolaris_Governance_Draft_02 >> >>It would be nice if folks could read through it and write down comments, >>preferably in email or the discussion page, prior to our next meeting >>(Wednesday 7/12 ?). I'll try to go through saved mail from earlier >>drafts >>and check for comments that still apply, but that is unlikely given that >>it is now a complete document in the traditional form of bylaws. > > > I read through the draft and I believe a few items still need some > discussion, but on the whole I'm pleased with this draft. > > 1. The second paragraph in Article II is wide-ranging, and can be > read to conflict with the Charter: > > The OpenSolaris Community has the authority and responsibility > for all decisions pertaining to the OpenSolaris software and > collaborative infrastructure, including the allocation and > deallocation of resources to support development of work > products of the OpenSolaris Community, provided that such > decisions are not inconsistent with applicable law, regulation, > and the exclusive rights of the copyright owners. > > In particular, one of the beliefs I've had is that distributions > own the authority regarding the allocation and deallocation of > their resources, even though those resources may be partcipating > in a Community-wide activity. Based on my memories of the Charter > review by Sun Legal, I would like some additional detail on what > this paragraph is intended to specify. > > I also don't believe we really had the discussion regarding the > "technical lead" role, but this paragraph suggests that any such > role would be directed on a detailed level by the Board. > > 2. (Nit.) Emeritus is an adjective, so one must be an Emeritus > Something or Something Emeritus; the usage in 3.3.4 is awkward. > Core Contributor Emeritus is long-winded, but I make it as a > suggestion. > > 3. I was surprised by 3.7.4, which suggests that, even after > suspension or expulsion, one still has the privileges of voting > and attendence. Is this retention of privilege strictly > necessary? (It's also implied in the last sentence of 3.5.) > > 4. (Nit.) It would be nice if 4.1.1 included "teleconference" or > "audioconference", as in 5.7. > > 5. The proxy mechanism in 4.11 applies to Elections as well as > Meetings, or just to Meetings? > > 6. 6.4.4 introduces a Group Chair, whose role isn't really defined, > whereas the Group Facilitator is well defined. I wasn't able to > determine if Chair was a deliberate introduction, or a typo. If > it is deliberate, then what are the Chair's responsibilities? > (None are mentioned in 6.7 or 7.) > > 7. I kept the contents of Article VII out of the previous draft > because I didn't believe that it was necessary to encode them (or > any substitute) in the Constitution. I don't feel particularly > strongly about including them, but I would hope to have language > included that allows the OGB to add additional consensus systems > without a Constitutional Amendment. > > 8. (Nit. ) Perhaps I'm thinking too much about small changes driven > by individuals, but I believe the "Action Types" list should be > reduced to not include small changes like putbacks, documentation, > or design choices. > > Nice work. > > - Stephen > From Casper.Dik at Sun.COM Wed Jul 12 10:59:56 2006 From: Casper.Dik at Sun.COM (Casper.Dik at Sun.COM) Date: Wed, 12 Jul 2006 19:59:56 +0200 Subject: [cab-discuss] Con-Call, Wed 7/12 In-Reply-To: References: <44AF72B9.808@cuddletech.com> Message-ID: <200607121759.k6CHxuGC006759@vaticaan.holland.sun.com> >On Sat, 8 Jul 2006, Ben Rockwood wrote: > >> As Roy mentioned in his last mail, a con-call was noted for 7/12 in the >> last call, but we need to confirm that the date works for everyone. If >> your able to make the call please confirm your attendance so that we can >> get it scheduled. > >I will attend. Same here. Casper From benr at cuddletech.com Wed Jul 12 11:35:52 2006 From: benr at cuddletech.com (Ben Rockwood) Date: Wed, 12 Jul 2006 11:35:52 -0700 Subject: [cab-discuss] Con-Call, Wed 7/12 In-Reply-To: <200607121759.k6CHxuGC006759@vaticaan.holland.sun.com> References: <44AF72B9.808@cuddletech.com> <200607121759.k6CHxuGC006759@vaticaan.holland.sun.com> Message-ID: <44B54108.5050205@cuddletech.com> Casper.Dik at Sun.COM wrote: >> On Sat, 8 Jul 2006, Ben Rockwood wrote: >> >> >>> As Roy mentioned in his last mail, a con-call was noted for 7/12 in the >>> last call, but we need to confirm that the date works for everyone. If >>> your able to make the call please confirm your attendance so that we can >>> get it scheduled. >>> >> I will attend. >> > > Same here. > * US: (866) 545-5218 * International: (865) 544-7028 * Access Code: 1649399 * Host Code: 8454 Jim sent this out on the 8th. I'll get in early to host. Jim will not be on this call. benr. From fielding at gbiv.com Wed Jul 12 17:13:19 2006 From: fielding at gbiv.com (Roy T. Fielding) Date: Wed, 12 Jul 2006 17:13:19 -0700 Subject: [cab-discuss] Attempt at Draft 02 In-Reply-To: <20060711205853.GA191082@eng.sun.com> References: <7B14178A-49DF-4C0A-83CD-E193A4018E33@gbiv.com> <20060711205853.GA191082@eng.sun.com> Message-ID: On Jul 11, 2006, at 1:58 PM, Stephen Hahn wrote: > I read through the draft and I believe a few items still need some > discussion, but on the whole I'm pleased with this draft. > > 1. The second paragraph in Article II is wide-ranging, and can be > read to conflict with the Charter: > > The OpenSolaris Community has the authority and responsibility > for all decisions pertaining to the OpenSolaris software and > collaborative infrastructure, including the allocation and > deallocation of resources to support development of work > products of the OpenSolaris Community, provided that such > decisions are not inconsistent with applicable law, regulation, > and the exclusive rights of the copyright owners. > > In particular, one of the beliefs I've had is that distributions > own the authority regarding the allocation and deallocation of > their resources, even though those resources may be partcipating > in a Community-wide activity. Based on my memories of the > Charter > review by Sun Legal, I would like some additional detail on what > this paragraph is intended to specify. I meant the software and hardware infrastructure supporting the opensolaris.org website and (eventual) SCM repository. Sometimes I forget that companies use the term resources for people as well. > I also don't believe we really had the discussion regarding the > "technical lead" role, but this paragraph suggests that any such > role would be directed on a detailed level by the Board. It should be fixed to specify only things within the charter. > 2. (Nit.) Emeritus is an adjective, so one must be an Emeritus > Something or Something Emeritus; the usage in 3.3.4 is awkward. > Core Contributor Emeritus is long-winded, but I make it as a > suggestion. Okay, but more likely Emeritus contributor. > 3. I was surprised by 3.7.4, which suggests that, even after > suspension or expulsion, one still has the privileges of voting > and attendence. Is this retention of privilege strictly > necessary? (It's also implied in the last sentence of 3.5.) It isn't strictly necessary, but I did it that way to prevent the in-office OGB from expelling people it thinks will vote against it in the next members meeting. Usually, expulsion from a membership organization has to be decided by the members or by an impartial third party (like a judge). > 4. (Nit.) It would be nice if 4.1.1 included "teleconference" or > "audioconference", as in 5.7. I don't think those are suitable for members meetings due to the number of attendees and the cost associated with that type of equipment. > 5. The proxy mechanism in 4.11 applies to Elections as well as > Meetings, or just to Meetings? Both. An election is just one decision made by members at a meeting, with the difference being how the vote is performed (e.g., by ballot). > 6. 6.4.4 introduces a Group Chair, whose role isn't really defined, > whereas the Group Facilitator is well defined. I wasn't able to > determine if Chair was a deliberate introduction, or a typo. If > it is deliberate, then what are the Chair's responsibilities? > (None are mentioned in 6.7 or 7.) Typo, fixed already. > 7. I kept the contents of Article VII out of the previous draft > because I didn't believe that it was necessary to encode them > (or > any substitute) in the Constitution. I don't feel particularly > strongly about including them, but I would hope to have language > included that allows the OGB to add additional consensus systems > without a Constitutional Amendment. It is essential that the group consensus mechanism be suitable for asynchronous communication among volunteers spread around the world. Otherwise, those with the money/proximity will dominate the group even when they try not to, and the entry-barrier for the outside community will be huge. OTOH, more formal meeting structures, like Robert's rules or parliamentary procedure, are too heavyweight for software development. It takes ages for even the most simple motions to be passed via email. Collaborative software development is more like barn-raising, where people do individual tasks on their own and form ad-hoc groups when combined muscle or agreement is needed. That is how the Apache voting guidelines came about. It is a lot easier to make them part of the culture of OpenSolaris if they are used uniformly for all Groups. > 8. (Nit. ) Perhaps I'm thinking too much about small changes > driven > by individuals, but I believe the "Action Types" list should be > reduced to not include small changes like putbacks, > documentation, > or design choices. I think it is important to note that small changes like putbacks and documentation are Assumed to be approved until someone objects. If we don't say that, then there is no mechanism to prevent commit wars. BTW, I mean putbacks to the shared repository for eventual release. I don't know if there is a more specific term for that. > Nice work. Thanks, and thanks for the comments. ....Roy From fielding at gbiv.com Wed Jul 12 19:19:07 2006 From: fielding at gbiv.com (Roy T. Fielding) Date: Wed, 12 Jul 2006 19:19:07 -0700 Subject: [cab-discuss] Attempt at Draft 02 In-Reply-To: <44B433C7.9060004@sun.com> References: <7B14178A-49DF-4C0A-83CD-E193A4018E33@gbiv.com> <20060711205853.GA191082@eng.sun.com> <44B433C7.9060004@sun.com> Message-ID: On Jul 11, 2006, at 4:27 PM, Karyn Ritter wrote: > I think Stephen raises excellent points here. I have a few > questions that are not as substantive as Stephen's: > > 3.7: Do all decisions about suspension/expulsion or participants > have > to go through the OGB? I know Section 3.5 says that voting > membership > is not subject to involuntary termination (and have questions about > this like Stephen Hahn does...), but can an OpenSolaris Group decide > to suspend/expel a Contributor from their group? Not as currently written. Expulsion from a Group's governance is accomplished by removal from the Core Contributors (which is mentioned briefly in VII, but should be described in article VI). I did not consider that a Group might want to suspend a person from writing to just that Group's mail/forums, without having the OGB suspend that person from all Community mail/forums. Does that need to be formalized? > In # 2 (still in 3.7), what does it mean to suspend "participant's > write access to the OpenSolaris Community infrastructure"? Is that > limited to writing to the repository? Forums/Mail lists? Group > pages? It is not limited. It should include anything to which participants can write, aside from the members meetings, but that set will change over time. > 5.3 (nit): In the second paragraph, I think it would be clearer to > state that there is a term limit and that members who have hit the > term limit can not be nominated again. The way it is written now was > just unclear to me. But that may just be me. Do you have a specific change in mind? It is written that way now so as not to bind terms to a specific length of time (e.g. 3 years). > 6.4: Does this mean that all of the current "Groups" on > opensolaris.org will be re-evaluated? There didn't seem to be any > recognition of how existing Groups would be handled. Yes, I think they all need to be re-evaluated. If nothing else, we need to have a documented scope for each group. > 7.3 & 7.4: I'm not sure what references to "product release" mean. I > know that I try to be very clear on opensolaris.org and any > documentation that OpenSolaris is not a product. So, I'm not sure > what > "Product release" means here. I assume it is a reference to whatever > the Group is producing. Maybe I'm the only one with this concern > because I've been close to Solaris for so long. OpenSolaris may not be a product, but it consists of many products. A "product" is what the lawyers would call a work product, and a "product release" is a decision by the Group that a given revision of their work product shall be given a name and published for use by others outside of that Group. What exactly that means depends on the scope of the Group, which usually defines what the Group is expected to produce (if anything). It could be anything from a piece of code to a conference event schedule. > These comments/questions are also on the wiki discussion page. Thanks, ....Roy From Karyn.Ritter at Sun.COM Thu Jul 13 06:58:27 2006 From: Karyn.Ritter at Sun.COM (Karyn Ritter) Date: Thu, 13 Jul 2006 06:58:27 -0700 Subject: [cab-discuss] Attempt at Draft 02 In-Reply-To: References: <7B14178A-49DF-4C0A-83CD-E193A4018E33@gbiv.com> <20060711205853.GA191082@eng.sun.com> <44B433C7.9060004@sun.com> Message-ID: <44B65183.4070706@sun.com> Roy T. Fielding wrote: > On Jul 11, 2006, at 4:27 PM, Karyn Ritter wrote: > >> I think Stephen raises excellent points here. I have a few questions >> that are not as substantive as Stephen's: >> >> 3.7: Do all decisions about suspension/expulsion or participants have >> to go through the OGB? I know Section 3.5 says that voting membership >> is not subject to involuntary termination (and have questions about >> this like Stephen Hahn does...), but can an OpenSolaris Group decide >> to suspend/expel a Contributor from their group? > > > Not as currently written. Expulsion from a Group's governance is > accomplished by removal from the Core Contributors (which is mentioned > briefly in VII, but should be described in article VI). I did not > consider that a Group might want to suspend a person from writing to > just that Group's mail/forums, without having the OGB suspend that > person from all Community mail/forums. Does that need to be formalized? > I don't know, I was just asking the question. :) At this point, it is probably best to leave it as is, and revise if the OGB is spending too much time on this kind of activity. I don't even know if this will come up. Unless, of course, others see this as a more significant issue. >> In # 2 (still in 3.7), what does it mean to suspend "participant's >> write access to the OpenSolaris Community infrastructure"? Is that >> limited to writing to the repository? Forums/Mail lists? Group pages? > > > It is not limited. It should include anything to which participants can > write, aside from the members meetings, but that set will change over > time. > >> 5.3 (nit): In the second paragraph, I think it would be clearer to >> state that there is a term limit and that members who have hit the >> term limit can not be nominated again. The way it is written now was >> just unclear to me. But that may just be me. > > > Do you have a specific change in mind? It is written that way now so as > not to bind terms to a specific length of time (e.g. 3 years). > Re-reading it again, I guess it really is a nit... Just leave it as is. Thanks, Karyn >> 6.4: Does this mean that all of the current "Groups" on >> opensolaris.org will be re-evaluated? There didn't seem to be any >> recognition of how existing Groups would be handled. > > > Yes, I think they all need to be re-evaluated. If nothing else, we need > to have a documented scope for each group. > >> 7.3 & 7.4: I'm not sure what references to "product release" mean. I >> know that I try to be very clear on opensolaris.org and any >> documentation that OpenSolaris is not a product. So, I'm not sure what >> "Product release" means here. I assume it is a reference to whatever >> the Group is producing. Maybe I'm the only one with this concern >> because I've been close to Solaris for so long. > > > OpenSolaris may not be a product, but it consists of many products. > A "product" is what the lawyers would call a work product, and a > "product release" is a decision by the Group that a given revision > of their work product shall be given a name and published for use > by others outside of that Group. What exactly that means depends > on the scope of the Group, which usually defines what the Group is > expected to produce (if anything). It could be anything from a piece > of code to a conference event schedule. > >> These comments/questions are also on the wiki discussion page. > > > Thanks, > > ....Roy > > _______________________________________________ > cab-discuss mailing list > cab-discuss at opensolaris.org From Sara.Dornsife at Sun.COM Mon Jul 17 18:40:31 2006 From: Sara.Dornsife at Sun.COM (Sara Dornsife) Date: Mon, 17 Jul 2006 20:40:31 -0500 Subject: [cab-discuss] OGB committee to determine Sun TM usage Message-ID: <44BC3C0F.2010802@sun.com> Please find a document attached that outlines the proposed TM plan for OpenSolaris (in OOo 2.0). We have gotten approval from all of the necessary executives at Sun to create a license for 2 of the proposed graphics that can be approved of by a sub-committee created by the OGB. This is huge, fantastic and amazing. Sun is allowing the committee (a 3rd party) to grant 3rd parties permission to use a Sun TM. In order for this to work though, we need to do a few things. 1. Agree to creating the committee. 2. Establish the guidelines for research and approval. 3. Include this responsibility in our governance. 4. Write up the definition of an "OpenSolaris Community Project". 5. As a committee, the licenses need to reviewed and approved. It breaks down into 4 categories. - Individuals - fan buttons - Projects - OpenSolaris Community Project - Products - Based on OpenSolaris (please comment on that terminology) - Platform - OS icon to indicate platform compatibility Details are in the attached spreadsheet. Please let me know what you think. All questions and comments are encouraged. Sara -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: TM_Brand Spreadsheet_71706.sxc Type: application/vnd.sun.xml.calc Size: 11514 bytes Desc: not available URL: From Sara.Dornsife at Sun.COM Mon Jul 17 18:40:52 2006 From: Sara.Dornsife at Sun.COM (Sara Dornsife) Date: Mon, 17 Jul 2006 20:40:52 -0500 Subject: [cab-discuss] OGB committee to determine Sun TM usage Message-ID: <44BC3C24.8090203@sun.com> Please find a document attached that outlines the proposed TM plan for OpenSolaris (in OOo 2.0). We have gotten approval from all of the necessary executives at Sun to create a license for 2 of the proposed graphics that can be approved of by a sub-committee created by the OGB. This is huge, fantastic and amazing. Sun is allowing the committee (a 3rd party) to grant 3rd parties permission to use a Sun TM. In order for this to work though, we need to do a few things. 1. Agree to creating the committee. 2. Establish the guidelines for research and approval. 3. Include this responsibility in our governance. 4. Write up the definition of an "OpenSolaris Community Project". 5. As a committee, the licenses need to reviewed and approved. It breaks down into 4 categories. - Individuals - fan buttons - Projects - OpenSolaris Community Project - Products - Based on OpenSolaris (please comment on that terminology) - Platform - OS icon to indicate platform compatibility Details are in the attached spreadsheet. Please let me know what you think. All questions and comments are encouraged. Sara -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: TM_Brand Spreadsheet_71706.sxc Type: application/vnd.sun.xml.calc Size: 11514 bytes Desc: not available URL: From al at logical-approach.com Tue Jul 18 06:05:03 2006 From: al at logical-approach.com (Al Hopper) Date: Tue, 18 Jul 2006 08:05:03 -0500 (CDT) Subject: [cab-discuss] OGB committee to determine Sun TM usage In-Reply-To: <44BC3C0F.2010802@sun.com> References: <44BC3C0F.2010802@sun.com> Message-ID: On Mon, 17 Jul 2006, Sara Dornsife wrote: > Please find a document attached that outlines the proposed TM plan for > OpenSolaris (in OOo 2.0). > > We have gotten approval from all of the necessary executives at Sun to > create a license for 2 of the proposed graphics that can be approved of > by a sub-committee created by the OGB. This is huge, fantastic and > amazing. Sun is allowing the committee (a 3rd party) to grant 3rd > parties permission to use a Sun TM. Excellent news. > In order for this to work though, we need to do a few things. > > 1. Agree to creating the committee. > > 2. Establish the guidelines for research and approval. > > 3. Include this responsibility in our governance. Q: Why would it have to be included in the governance document? > 4. Write up the definition of an "OpenSolaris Community Project". > > 5. As a committee, the licenses need to reviewed and approved. > > It breaks down into 4 categories. > - Individuals - fan buttons > - Projects - OpenSolaris Community Project > - Products - Based on OpenSolaris (please comment on that terminology) > - Platform - OS icon to indicate platform compatibility > > Details are in the attached spreadsheet. > > Please let me know what you think. All questions and comments are > encouraged. > Sara > Al Hopper Logical Approach Inc, Plano, TX. al at logical-approach.com Voice: 972.379.2133 Fax: 972.379.2134 Timezone: US CDT OpenSolaris.Org Community Advisory Board (CAB) Member - Apr 2005 OpenSolaris Governing Board (OGB) Member - Feb 2006 From Sara.Dornsife at Sun.COM Tue Jul 18 07:00:38 2006 From: Sara.Dornsife at Sun.COM (Sara Dornsife) Date: Tue, 18 Jul 2006 09:00:38 -0500 Subject: [cab-discuss] OGB committee to determine Sun TM usage In-Reply-To: References: <44BC3C0F.2010802@sun.com> Message-ID: <44BCE986.4020901@sun.com> Al Hopper wrote: > On Mon, 17 Jul 2006, Sara Dornsife wrote: > >> Please find a document attached that outlines the proposed TM plan for >> OpenSolaris (in OOo 2.0). >> >> We have gotten approval from all of the necessary executives at Sun to >> create a license for 2 of the proposed graphics that can be approved of >> by a sub-committee created by the OGB. This is huge, fantastic and >> amazing. Sun is allowing the committee (a 3rd party) to grant 3rd >> parties permission to use a Sun TM. > > Excellent news. > >> In order for this to work though, we need to do a few things. >> >> 1. Agree to creating the committee. >> >> 2. Establish the guidelines for research and approval. >> >> 3. Include this responsibility in our governance. > > Q: Why would it have to be included in the governance document? It may just be a misunderstanding on my part, but the roles and responsibilities of the CAB/OGB are part of the governing of the community. > >> 4. Write up the definition of an "OpenSolaris Community Project". >> >> 5. As a committee, the licenses need to reviewed and approved. >> >> It breaks down into 4 categories. >> - Individuals - fan buttons >> - Projects - OpenSolaris Community Project >> - Products - Based on OpenSolaris (please comment on that terminology) >> - Platform - OS icon to indicate platform compatibility >> >> Details are in the attached spreadsheet. >> >> Please let me know what you think. All questions and comments are >> encouraged. >> Sara >> > > Al Hopper Logical Approach Inc, Plano, TX. al at logical-approach.com > Voice: 972.379.2133 Fax: 972.379.2134 Timezone: US CDT > OpenSolaris.Org Community Advisory Board (CAB) Member - Apr 2005 > OpenSolaris Governing Board (OGB) Member - Feb 2006 From Sara.Dornsife at Sun.COM Thu Jul 20 06:24:51 2006 From: Sara.Dornsife at Sun.COM (Sara Dornsife) Date: Thu, 20 Jul 2006 08:24:51 -0500 Subject: [cab-discuss] Re: OGB committee to determine Sun TM usage In-Reply-To: <44BC3C24.8090203@sun.com> References: <44BC3C24.8090203@sun.com> Message-ID: <44BF8423.8080401@sun.com> Aside from one brief question from Al, there has been no additional comments on this. May I consider this concensus on the idea? Who would like to work with me and legal on license details? Sara Sara Dornsife wrote: > Please find a document attached that outlines the proposed TM plan for > OpenSolaris (in OOo 2.0). > > We have gotten approval from all of the necessary executives at Sun to > create a license for 2 of the proposed graphics that can be approved of > by a sub-committee created by the OGB. This is huge, fantastic and > amazing. Sun is allowing the committee (a 3rd party) to grant 3rd > parties permission to use a Sun TM. > > In order for this to work though, we need to do a few things. > > 1. Agree to creating the committee. > > 2. Establish the guidelines for research and approval. > > 3. Include this responsibility in our governance. > > 4. Write up the definition of an "OpenSolaris Community Project". > > 5. As a committee, the licenses need to reviewed and approved. > > It breaks down into 4 categories. > - Individuals - fan buttons > - Projects - OpenSolaris Community Project > - Products - Based on OpenSolaris (please comment on that terminology) > - Platform - OS icon to indicate platform compatibility > > Details are in the attached spreadsheet. > > Please let me know what you think. All questions and comments are > encouraged. > Sara From rich.teer at rite-group.com Thu Jul 20 19:30:48 2006 From: rich.teer at rite-group.com (Rich Teer) Date: Thu, 20 Jul 2006 19:30:48 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [cab-discuss] OGB committee to determine Sun TM usage In-Reply-To: <44BC3C0F.2010802@sun.com> References: <44BC3C0F.2010802@sun.com> Message-ID: On Mon, 17 Jul 2006, Sara Dornsife wrote: > Please find a document attached that outlines the proposed TM plan for > OpenSolaris (in OOo 2.0). Hurrah for non-M$ formats! :-) > We have gotten approval from all of the necessary executives at Sun to create > a license for 2 of the proposed graphics that can be approved of by a > sub-committee created by the OGB. This is huge, fantastic and amazing. Sun is > allowing the committee (a 3rd party) to grant 3rd parties permission to use a > Sun TM. It is great news, although I see that Sun reserves veto power for a couple of the items. I can understand why Sun would want this provision (it contains a Sun TM), but it doesn't really "feel" right to me. It could be interpreted as "you can do what you like, provided that's what we want" by naysayers. In an ideal world, the veto provision wouldn't be there as the CAB/OGB committee should be trusted to do the right thing. > 3. Include this responsibility in our governance. Like Al, I don't understand why this specifically needs to be spelt out in the governance doc. Unless it's because stewardship of Sun IP (in this case, the OpenSolaris TM) is being handed over to a 3rd party (the OGB), and the Charter says (IIRC) that Sun maintains control over its IP? If that is the case, I guess this esception does need to be spelled out in the governance (although, IANAL). Finally, the Use field for OpenSOlaris Community Project says "For *projects*, not just individuals, that are based on or designed for OpenSolaris source code and are not on OpenSolaris.org". May I suggest a small addition: "... that are based on or designed for OpenSolaris source code OR THE OPENSOLARIS COMMUNITY and are not based on OpenSolaris.org"? [Emphasis added.] -- Rich Teer, SCNA, SCSA, OpenSolaris CAB member President, Rite Online Inc. Voice: +1 (250) 979-1638 URL: http://www.rite-group.com/rich From Karyn.Ritter at Sun.COM Thu Jul 20 22:34:25 2006 From: Karyn.Ritter at Sun.COM (Karyn Ritter) Date: Thu, 20 Jul 2006 22:34:25 -0700 Subject: [cab-discuss] OGB committee to determine Sun TM usage In-Reply-To: References: <44BC3C0F.2010802@sun.com> Message-ID: <44C06761.7050103@sun.com> >> 3. Include this responsibility in our governance. > > > Like Al, I don't understand why this specifically needs to be spelt out > in the governance doc. Unless it's because stewardship of Sun IP (in > this case, the OpenSolaris TM) is being handed over to a 3rd party (the > OGB), and the Charter says (IIRC) that Sun maintains control over its IP? > If that is the case, I guess this esception does need to be spelled out > in the governance (although, IANAL). > A couple of us advised Sara that the CAB/OGB should look at before the Governance documents were complete. There have been a few revisions with very different approaches, and we were more worried about this type of responsibility being excluded from the provisions rather than it needing to be explicitly included. I don't think it is an issue at this point, but (of course) leave that for you to decide. - Karyn From binarycrusader at gmail.com Thu Jul 27 03:18:55 2006 From: binarycrusader at gmail.com (Shawn Walker) Date: Thu, 27 Jul 2006 03:18:55 PDT Subject: [cab-discuss] Re: OGB committee to determine Sun TM usage In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <2811986.1153995565947.JavaMail.suncom@oss-app2> > On Mon, 17 Jul 2006, Sara Dornsife wrote: > > 3. Include this responsibility in our governance. > > Like Al, I don't understand why this specifically > needs to be spelt out > in the governance doc. Unless it's because > stewardship of Sun IP (in > this case, the OpenSolaris TM) is being handed over > to a 3rd party (the > OGB), and the Charter says (IIRC) that Sun maintains > control over its IP? > If that is the case, I guess this esception does need > to be spelled out > in the governance (although, IANAL). > > Finally, the Use field for OpenSOlaris Community > Project says "For > *projects*, not just individuals, that are based on > or designed for > OpenSolaris source code and are not on > OpenSolaris.org". May I > suggest a small addition: "... that are based on or > designed for > OpenSolaris source code OR THE OPENSOLARIS COMMUNITY > and are not > based on OpenSolaris.org"? [Emphasis added.] > > -- > Rich Teer, SCNA, SCSA, OpenSolaris CAB member > > President, > Rite Online Inc. > > Voice: +1 (250) 979-1638 > URL: http://www.rite-group.com/rich I have to agree with Rich. Everything else in the spreadsheet looked "reasonable" to me. -Shawn This message posted from opensolaris.org From fielding at gbiv.com Thu Jul 27 15:33:46 2006 From: fielding at gbiv.com (Roy T. Fielding) Date: Thu, 27 Jul 2006 15:33:46 -0700 Subject: [cab-discuss] OGB committee to determine Sun TM usage In-Reply-To: <44BC3C0F.2010802@sun.com> References: <44BC3C0F.2010802@sun.com> Message-ID: <583870C9-3B28-4C1C-B7B1-F18F82644028@gbiv.com> On Jul 17, 2006, at 6:40 PM, Sara Dornsife wrote: > Please find a document attached that outlines the proposed TM plan > for OpenSolaris (in OOo 2.0). > > We have gotten approval from all of the necessary executives at Sun > to create a license for 2 of the proposed graphics that can be > approved of by a sub-committee created by the OGB. This is huge, > fantastic and amazing. Sun is allowing the committee (a 3rd party) > to grant 3rd parties permission to use a Sun TM. > > In order for this to work though, we need to do a few things. > > 1. Agree to creating the committee. > > 2. Establish the guidelines for research and approval. > > 3. Include this responsibility in our governance. Almost. It would require a change to the charter: However, nothing in this charter shall be construed so as to confer to the OGB: (a) any title or right under copyright, patent, trademark, or other intellectual property law; (b) control of or interest in any asset, tangible or intangible, of Sun Microsystems, Inc. or any of its subsidiaries; (c) control of or interest in Sun Microsystems, Inc. or any of its subsidiaries. so I think it would make more sense for Sun to create such a community and appoint some subset of the OGB members. That is, unless someone wants to renegotiate the charter. ....Roy From sch at eng.sun.com Thu Jul 27 15:36:47 2006 From: sch at eng.sun.com (Stephen Hahn) Date: Thu, 27 Jul 2006 15:36:47 -0700 Subject: [cab-discuss] Feedback update Message-ID: <20060727223647.GA114332@eng.sun.com> Internal comments are still coming in. I will bundle up the lot based on what I collect by end of tomorrow. - Stephen -- Stephen Hahn, PhD Solaris Kernel Development, Sun Microsystems stephen.hahn at sun.com http://blogs.sun.com/sch/ From Simon.Phipps at Sun.COM Thu Jul 27 23:11:40 2006 From: Simon.Phipps at Sun.COM (Simon Phipps) Date: Thu, 27 Jul 2006 23:11:40 -0700 Subject: [cab-discuss] OGB committee to determine Sun TM usage In-Reply-To: <583870C9-3B28-4C1C-B7B1-F18F82644028@gbiv.com> References: <44BC3C0F.2010802@sun.com> <583870C9-3B28-4C1C-B7B1-F18F82644028@gbiv.com> Message-ID: On Jul 27, 2006, at 15:33, Roy T. Fielding wrote: > On Jul 17, 2006, at 6:40 PM, Sara Dornsife wrote: > >> Please find a document attached that outlines the proposed TM plan >> for OpenSolaris (in OOo 2.0). >> >> We have gotten approval from all of the necessary executives at >> Sun to create a license for 2 of the proposed graphics that can be >> approved of by a sub-committee created by the OGB. This is huge, >> fantastic and amazing. Sun is allowing the committee (a 3rd party) >> to grant 3rd parties permission to use a Sun TM. >> >> In order for this to work though, we need to do a few things. >> >> 1. Agree to creating the committee. >> >> 2. Establish the guidelines for research and approval. >> >> 3. Include this responsibility in our governance. > > Almost. It would require a change to the charter: > > However, nothing in this charter shall be construed so as to > confer > to the OGB: (a) any title or right under copyright, patent, > trademark, > or other intellectual property law; (b) control of or interest > in any > asset, tangible or intangible, of Sun Microsystems, Inc. or any of > its subsidiaries; (c) control of or interest in Sun > Microsystems, Inc. > or any of its subsidiaries. > > so I think it would make more sense for Sun to create such a community > and appoint some subset of the OGB members. That is, unless someone > wants to renegotiate the charter. While I agree that the OGB cannot choose of itself to assert any of those abilities, I do not believe those charter terms prevent Sun from explicitly delegating this role to the OGB. S. From rich.teer at rite-group.com Fri Jul 28 08:29:05 2006 From: rich.teer at rite-group.com (Rich Teer) Date: Fri, 28 Jul 2006 08:29:05 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [cab-discuss] OGB committee to determine Sun TM usage In-Reply-To: References: <44BC3C0F.2010802@sun.com> <583870C9-3B28-4C1C-B7B1-F18F82644028@gbiv.com> Message-ID: On Thu, 27 Jul 2006, Simon Phipps wrote: > > Almost. It would require a change to the charter: > > > > However, nothing in this charter shall be construed so as to confer > > to the OGB: (a) any title or right under copyright, patent, trademark, > > or other intellectual property law; (b) control of or interest in any > > asset, tangible or intangible, of Sun Microsystems, Inc. or any of > > its subsidiaries; (c) control of or interest in Sun Microsystems, Inc. > > or any of its subsidiaries. > > > > so I think it would make more sense for Sun to create such a community > > and appoint some subset of the OGB members. That is, unless someone > > wants to renegotiate the charter. > > While I agree that the OGB cannot choose of itself to assert any of those > abilities, I do not believe those charter terms prevent Sun from explicitly > delegating this role to the OGB. Perhaps, for the avoidance of doubt, the bit of the Charter Roy quoted could be amended? Something like "However, unless explicitly delegated by Sun Microsystems, Inc., nothing in this charter..."? Which then raises the question of where such delegation would be officially recorded. Hmm, I guess it be done as a motion at an OGB meeting, and the OGB would vote to adopt Sun's motion, so the minutes of that meeting would serve as an official record? -- Rich Teer, SCNA, SCSA, OpenSolaris CAB member President, Rite Online Inc. Voice: +1 (250) 979-1638 URL: http://www.rite-group.com/rich From keith.wesolowski at sun.com Fri Jul 28 09:05:36 2006 From: keith.wesolowski at sun.com (Keith M Wesolowski) Date: Fri, 28 Jul 2006 09:05:36 -0700 Subject: [cab-discuss] OGB committee to determine Sun TM usage In-Reply-To: References: <44BC3C0F.2010802@sun.com> <583870C9-3B28-4C1C-B7B1-F18F82644028@gbiv.com> Message-ID: <20060728160535.GA10864@sun.com> On Fri, Jul 28, 2006 at 08:29:05AM -0700, Rich Teer wrote: > On Thu, 27 Jul 2006, Simon Phipps wrote: > > > > Almost. It would require a change to the charter: > > > > > > However, nothing in this charter shall be construed so as to confer > > > to the OGB: (a) any title or right under copyright, patent, trademark, > > > or other intellectual property law; (b) control of or interest in any > > > asset, tangible or intangible, of Sun Microsystems, Inc. or any of > > > its subsidiaries; (c) control of or interest in Sun Microsystems, Inc. > > > or any of its subsidiaries. > > > > > > so I think it would make more sense for Sun to create such a community > > > and appoint some subset of the OGB members. That is, unless someone > > > wants to renegotiate the charter. > > > > While I agree that the OGB cannot choose of itself to assert any of those > > abilities, I do not believe those charter terms prevent Sun from explicitly > > delegating this role to the OGB. > > Perhaps, for the avoidance of doubt, the bit of the Charter Roy quoted > could be amended? Something like "However, unless explicitly delegated > by Sun Microsystems, Inc., nothing in this charter..."? Doesn't seem necessary. Nothing *in the charter* grants the right to do it, but that doesn't preclude additional grants of authority separate from the charter if Sun wishes to make them. -- Keith M Wesolowski "Sir, we're surrounded!" FishWorks "Excellent; we can attack in any direction!" From fielding at gbiv.com Fri Jul 28 10:43:19 2006 From: fielding at gbiv.com (Roy T. Fielding) Date: Fri, 28 Jul 2006 10:43:19 -0700 Subject: [cab-discuss] OGB committee to determine Sun TM usage In-Reply-To: References: <44BC3C0F.2010802@sun.com> <583870C9-3B28-4C1C-B7B1-F18F82644028@gbiv.com> Message-ID: On Jul 27, 2006, at 11:11 PM, Simon Phipps wrote: > While I agree that the OGB cannot choose of itself to assert any of > those abilities, I do not believe those charter terms prevent Sun > from explicitly delegating this role to the OGB. Right, but that delegation would need to be in the form of an addendum to the charter for us to add it to the governance, since OGB governance is limited by the charter. It doesn't need to be part of the governance if it is just a committee of Sun that happens to include the current OGB. It doesn't really matter either way, so long as we don't put words in the constitution that contradict the charter. ....Roy From Glynn.Foster at Sun.COM Sun Jul 30 17:32:19 2006 From: Glynn.Foster at Sun.COM (Glynn Foster) Date: Sun, 30 Jul 2006 17:32:19 -0700 Subject: [cab-discuss] OGB committee to determine Sun TM usage In-Reply-To: <583870C9-3B28-4C1C-B7B1-F18F82644028@gbiv.com> References: <44BC3C0F.2010802@sun.com> <583870C9-3B28-4C1C-B7B1-F18F82644028@gbiv.com> Message-ID: <44CD4F93.9090903@sun.com> Roy T. Fielding wrote: > so I think it would make more sense for Sun to create such a community > and appoint some subset of the OGB members. That is, unless someone > wants to renegotiate the charter. I agree, although with the minor nit pick of calling it a delegated 'working group' rather than a 'community' [1] - does it really have to have OGB members on it? Glynn [1] Hrm, wonder if we should have opensolaris-legal community and give them the responsibility, though that could be a batshit insane suggestion if it turned into something like debian-legal ;) From rich.teer at rite-group.com Mon Jul 31 09:11:34 2006 From: rich.teer at rite-group.com (Rich Teer) Date: Mon, 31 Jul 2006 09:11:34 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [cab-discuss] OGB committee to determine Sun TM usage In-Reply-To: <44CD4F93.9090903@sun.com> References: <44BC3C0F.2010802@sun.com> <583870C9-3B28-4C1C-B7B1-F18F82644028@gbiv.com> <44CD4F93.9090903@sun.com> Message-ID: On Sun, 30 Jul 2006, Glynn Foster wrote: > I agree, although with the minor nit pick of calling it a delegated > 'working group' rather than a 'community' [1] - does it really have to > have OGB members on it? Not sure, but the committee definately should have non-Sun people on it, and in the OpenSolaris world as it stands right now, I think OGB members are probably best for consideration of that role. -- Rich Teer, SCNA, SCSA, OpenSolaris CAB member President, Rite Online Inc. Voice: +1 (250) 979-1638 URL: http://www.rite-group.com/rich From sch at eng.sun.com Mon Jul 31 21:50:32 2006 From: sch at eng.sun.com (Stephen Hahn) Date: Mon, 31 Jul 2006 21:50:32 -0700 Subject: [cab-discuss] Feedback update In-Reply-To: <20060727223647.GA114332@eng.sun.com> References: <20060727223647.GA114332@eng.sun.com> Message-ID: <20060801045032.GA126250@eng.sun.com> * Stephen Hahn [2006-07-27 15:36]: > > Internal comments are still coming in. I will bundle up the lot > based on what I collect by end of tomorrow. It's taking me quite a while to collate these into meaningful topics (and I sense at least one grab bag thread), so I will try to start the threads tomorrow, but summarize the two key issues now: - Article II Resource Allocation. Feedback has been very strong about the ambiguity of the term resources, as applied to any object or service that Sun currently owns/purchases/retains. One suggestion was to rephrase in terms of "community resources", although I'm not sure that's much better. - Expulsion. Almost all feedback has asked for some expansion of the disciplinary process around members. One puzzle was that a Core Contributor could vote and run for office, but be denied access to the forums where campaigning is expected to take place. So we need a mechanism for expelling members and removing their voting rights that meets Roy's criterion of not being exclusively a Board power. I will finish the summaries on these two as soon as I can tomorrow, and then will send the rest later on--but begin thinking about these two thornier aspects, please. - Stephen -- Stephen Hahn, PhD Solaris Kernel Development, Sun Microsystems stephen.hahn at sun.com http://blogs.sun.com/sch/