From Sara.Dornsife at Sun.COM Sun Jun 4 05:40:12 2006 From: Sara.Dornsife at Sun.COM (Sara Dornsife) Date: Sun, 04 Jun 2006 07:40:12 -0500 Subject: [cab-discuss] OpenSolaris Contributor Awards Message-ID: <4482D4AC.8060601@sun.com> Hi CAB, Below is the email I will be sending around to discuss and to mktg tomorrow. You'll note below that the there is a section about who decides who wins. I am hoping that you will agree to be those judges. If you are not able to, which is of course understood, we will form a committee of volunteers. Thanks, Sara Based on the +1s, we are moving forward with this proposal. Get your nominations in. What is a contributor? You define it. There is only one category, one requirement to be the recipient of one of these coveted awards: that the winner has to have done something -- anything -- to the benefit of the OpenSolaris community. It could be postings, code, evangelism, curriculum, blogs, etc. etc. etc. How are we going to do this? Anyone can make a nomination: - Send your nomination email to opensolaris-mktg at opensolaris.org - Tell us who you are nominating and why you feel he/she should receive an OpenSolaris Contributor Award. Be specific. - The first 200 people who send in nominations will receive an anniversary gift. One gift per person, but you can nominate as many people as you'd like. We'll collect your address and size separately. What do nominators get? - #1 T-shirt (artwork has been sent to mktg list) - OpenSolaris stickers (for sticking on stuff - artwork sent to mktg list) - OpenSolaris laptop sticker (the metalic or clear, small kind - artwork sent to mktg list) - An OpenSolaris electrostatic cling (for your car window) - A recordable CD/DVD imprinted with OpenSolaris for you to burn your favorite distro - artwork is located at http://www.opensolaris.org/os/community/marketing/mktgdownloads/ We can take nominations from Monday June 5 through Monday June 12. Who wins? From the pool of nominations that are received, the 20 most contributing-est contributors will be selected. Those 20 individuals will be named OpenSolaris Contributors and will receive the same gift as above, plus a fancy OpenSolaris embroidered polo shirt for occasions when you need to dress up. (These are an extremely limited edition, only 20 will be produced.) And an OpenSolaris "space pen", for when you need to write in zero gravity or under water. Who does the selecting? I don't know yet on this one, but we will have to know by June 12 when the nominations close. Where will the nominees be listed? http://www.opensolaris.org/os/community/marketing/contributoraward/ As emails come in nominating people, they will be added to this page. The ones I have already gotten are posted there now. When will we know who has won? Winners will be posted on the anniversary ? June 14. From webmink at sun.com Sun Jun 4 11:28:53 2006 From: webmink at sun.com (Simon Phipps) Date: Sun, 04 Jun 2006 19:28:53 +0100 Subject: [cab-discuss] OpenSolaris Contributor Awards In-Reply-To: <4482D4AC.8060601@sun.com> References: <4482D4AC.8060601@sun.com> Message-ID: Tricky as we don't meet until Wednesday. I understand the need to get moving, seeing as it's next week. Team, * I propose we agree to act as the judging panel for this on a one- off basis; * I propose we regard this as accepted unless any member of the CAB/ OGB votes against it by e-mail before noon PST Monday (tomorrow), that's 8pm UK time, 9pm European time. S. On Jun 4, 2006, at 13:40, Sara Dornsife wrote: > Hi CAB, > Below is the email I will be sending around to discuss and to mktg > tomorrow. You'll note below that the there is a section about who > decides who wins. I am hoping that you will agree to be those > judges. If you are not able to, which is of course understood, we > will form a committee of volunteers. > > Thanks, > Sara > > > Based on the +1s, we are moving forward with this proposal. Get > your nominations in. > > What is a contributor? > You define it. There is only one category, one requirement to be > the recipient of one of these coveted awards: that the winner has > to have done something -- anything -- to the benefit of the > OpenSolaris community. It could be postings, code, evangelism, > curriculum, blogs, etc. etc. etc. > > > How are we going to do this? > > Anyone can make a nomination: > > - Send your nomination email to opensolaris-mktg at opensolaris.org > - Tell us who you are nominating and why you feel he/she should > receive > an OpenSolaris Contributor Award. Be specific. > - The first 200 people who send in nominations will receive an > anniversary gift. One gift per person, but you can nominate as many > people as you'd like. We'll collect your address and size separately. > > What do nominators get? > - #1 T-shirt (artwork has been sent to mktg list) > - OpenSolaris stickers (for sticking on stuff - artwork sent to > mktg list) > - OpenSolaris laptop sticker (the metalic or clear, small kind - > artwork sent to mktg list) > - An OpenSolaris electrostatic cling (for your car window) > - A recordable CD/DVD imprinted with OpenSolaris for you to burn > your favorite distro - artwork is located at http:// > www.opensolaris.org/os/community/marketing/mktgdownloads/ > > > We can take nominations from Monday June 5 through Monday June 12. > > > Who wins? > From the pool of nominations that are received, the 20 most > contributing-est contributors will be selected. Those 20 > individuals will be named OpenSolaris Contributors and will receive > the same gift as above, plus a fancy OpenSolaris embroidered polo > shirt for occasions when you need to dress up. (These are an > extremely limited edition, only 20 will be produced.) And an > OpenSolaris "space pen", for when you need to write in zero gravity > or under water. > > > Who does the selecting? > I don't know yet on this one, but we will have to know by June 12 > when the nominations close. > > > Where will the nominees be listed? > http://www.opensolaris.org/os/community/marketing/contributoraward/ > > As emails come in nominating people, they will be added to this > page. The ones I have already gotten are posted there now. > > > When will we know who has won? > Winners will be posted on the anniversary ? June 14. > _______________________________________________ > cab-discuss mailing list > cab-discuss at opensolaris.org From rich.teer at rite-group.com Sun Jun 4 11:46:21 2006 From: rich.teer at rite-group.com (Rich Teer) Date: Sun, 04 Jun 2006 11:46:21 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [cab-discuss] OpenSolaris Contributor Awards In-Reply-To: References: <4482D4AC.8060601@sun.com> Message-ID: On Sun, 4 Jun 2006, Simon Phipps wrote: > Tricky as we don't meet until Wednesday. > > I understand the need to get moving, seeing as it's next week. Team, > * I propose we agree to act as the judging panel for this on a one-off basis; > * I propose we regard this as accepted unless any member of the CAB/OGB votes > against it by e-mail before noon PST Monday (tomorrow), that's 8pm UK time, > 9pm European time. +1 -- Rich Teer, SCNA, SCSA, OpenSolaris CAB member President, Rite Online Inc. Voice: +1 (250) 979-1638 URL: http://www.rite-group.com/rich From benr at cuddletech.com Tue Jun 6 00:50:36 2006 From: benr at cuddletech.com (Ben Rockwood) Date: Tue, 06 Jun 2006 00:50:36 -0700 Subject: [cab-discuss] Con-Call June 7th Message-ID: <448533CC.3060707@cuddletech.com> I'm looking for confirmation on whether or not we'll have a ConCall on Web, June 7th. benr. From al at logical-approach.com Tue Jun 6 05:18:58 2006 From: al at logical-approach.com (Al Hopper) Date: Tue, 6 Jun 2006 07:18:58 -0500 (CDT) Subject: [cab-discuss] Con-Call June 7th In-Reply-To: <448533CC.3060707@cuddletech.com> References: <448533CC.3060707@cuddletech.com> Message-ID: On Tue, 6 Jun 2006, Ben Rockwood wrote: > I'm looking for confirmation on whether or not we'll have a ConCall on > Web, June 7th. I can make the call. I'm assuming the usual time (Wed noon Pacific). 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 webmink at sun.com Tue Jun 6 10:42:07 2006 From: webmink at sun.com (Simon Phipps) Date: Tue, 06 Jun 2006 18:42:07 +0100 Subject: [cab-discuss] Con-Call June 7th In-Reply-To: <448533CC.3060707@cuddletech.com> References: <448533CC.3060707@cuddletech.com> Message-ID: <85C731DF-F5BF-4FAA-B6A7-CE29DD7AEC1F@sun.com> I'd like there to be a call, yes; however, my flight to Chicago just got changed and I will be in the air at the usual call time :-( I do think we need a discussion of how to deliver a constitution by the deadline. Ben, I believe you are most likely to be able to conduct this conversation; would you be able to chair the call in my absence please? S. On Jun 6, 2006, at 08:50, Ben Rockwood wrote: > I'm looking for confirmation on whether or not we'll have a ConCall > on Web, June 7th. > > benr. > _______________________________________________ > cab-discuss mailing list > cab-discuss at opensolaris.org From sch at eng.sun.com Tue Jun 6 11:49:20 2006 From: sch at eng.sun.com (Stephen Hahn) Date: Tue, 6 Jun 2006 11:49:20 -0700 Subject: [cab-discuss] A partially filled-in draft constitution In-Reply-To: References: <20060509230816.GA300304@eng.sun.com> Message-ID: <20060606184920.GA155463@eng.sun.com> For various reasons, some of which you can guess and some of which are personal, I've had trouble getting time to focus on revising Draft 01. In particular, I want to apologize to Roy, because the feedback in this message has been very useful. In any case, I'll be making edits so that Draft 01 can lose its "incomplete" state (and move to the "he's not much of an author, but it's done" state). * Roy T. Fielding [2006-05-10 14:15]: > I like the outline. I wish there was some way to avoid "the OpenSolaris > community" being the name of the larger entity. I suggest that we just > call it the OpenSolaris Organization. Agree. Corrected. > On May 9, 2006, at 4:08 PM, Stephen Hahn wrote: > The terminology here is dancing around the issues. A community needs > to be created (proposed + approved), governed, and terminated (the three > states of governance that apply to all of these categories). Thus, > I would have each section contain > > 1. Purpose of X > 2. Creation of X > a. nomination > b. approval > c. effective date > 3. Governance within X > a. participants > b. decision mechanism > c. reporting > 4. Termination of X > a. trigger for review > b. decision > c. reallocation of assets So I think I can restructure the Community and Membership sections in this manner, but let me check: can we define a section on Membership in the Organization and then a section on Communities and Community Membership? Then the structure you propose > Community participation > 1. Observers (base class = people registered on org) > 2. Contributors (made contributions, but do not yet have vote) > 3. Core (major contributors given community governance) > 4. Emeritus (former core on vacation) > > Organization-wide participation > 1. Observers (base class) > 2. Contributors (made contributions, but do not yet have vote) > 3. Citizens (major contributors given community governance) > 4. Emeritus (former citizens on vacation) seems to fit naturally. (I don't know about citizens of an organization, but I don't have a better word to suggest.) > Note that there is one class with the vote for community decisions > (core) and one class with the vote for organization decisions > (citizens), and an individual may belong to zero or more core groups > and yet be counted as one citizen. One scenario that's been mentioned would be to have a community-core be an organization-citizen; another, more lenient scenario would be to have community-contributors be organization-citizens. Thoughts? > I would also go further and add project governance to the constitution > since they will need to make decisions. I do not believe that having > a "community leader" make decisions is a viable model for non-employees. > > I suggest that projects be placed in a federated structure so that they > can overlap multiple communities and draw their decision-making > authority > from each community core. That is, a project consists of a list of > participants drawn from participants within the sponsoring communities; > the subset of whom that are core to those communities are given the > vote for project decisions. In order for a project to promote one of > their contributors to decision-making status, they have to promote them > to core status within the sponsors. If there are less than three > core participating in a given project, they must convince other > core members to review and vote on decisions requiring minimal quorum. I am not certain this detail is needed for the constitution, but I do agree that the notion of "endorsement" is an action that makes a project have responsibilities to the Organization and the OGB. > > 4. Alumni Contributors are Contributors who either no longer > >appear > > in the contribution lists published by Communities or have > > requested alumni status. > > that should be Emeritus (graduation is not our goal). Fixed. > > 5. Honorary Members are named by the Governing Board. > > so can "official soft drinks". I would not include this category. Removed. > > C. Procedure for application > > > > 1. A prospective Contributing member should apply to his or her > > Community. The Community can then approve or deny the > > application. > > > > 2. A prospective Core Contributor will be invited by the Core > > Contributors of the relevant Community. There is no > >petitioning > > process for a member to become a Core Contributor. > > > > 3. The Governing Board may grant Contributing Membership to an > > individual. This grant of Contributing Membership expires > >after > > a subsequent OpenSolaris election. The Contributor list > >from the > > Governing Board must be created and treated as equivalent to > >the > > Contributor lists of any other Community. > > Sounds like a great way to grow the polls just prior to a vote, and then > not have to be responsible to those added. ;-) Yeah, I wasn't happy with the ballot-stuffing either. > The rest is pretty good. It needs to state what roles are available > for people who are not elected (e.g., there is no need for the Secretary > to be a member of the OGB). Likewise, what is your (Stephen's) official > role in regards to this organization? Where does it fit within the > constitution, what are your powers, etc. Leaving it out is not an > option. As opposed to the project governance, I do think that some outline of the OGB-to-Sun relationship needs to be in the document. I don't want to suggest any initial structure, but I am happy to write it up based on constraints given. I think there are two views about the technical lead position: - it's a temporary position--residue from the pilot program, if you like--until the switch to open development completes. - it's the counterpart to the management lead position (Stephen Harpster), since Sun uses a split leadership model across technical and business issues. In the former case, the various aspects would devolve unto the various communities (consolidations, tools, other); in the latter, it's sort of a split executive director role, to steal a non-profit concept. - Stephen -- Stephen Hahn, PhD Solaris Kernel Development, Sun Microsystems stephen.hahn at sun.com http://blogs.sun.com/sch/ From benr at cuddletech.com Tue Jun 6 12:01:06 2006 From: benr at cuddletech.com (Ben Rockwood) Date: Tue, 06 Jun 2006 12:01:06 -0700 Subject: [cab-discuss] Con-Call June 7th In-Reply-To: <85C731DF-F5BF-4FAA-B6A7-CE29DD7AEC1F@sun.com> References: <448533CC.3060707@cuddletech.com> <85C731DF-F5BF-4FAA-B6A7-CE29DD7AEC1F@sun.com> Message-ID: <4485D0F2.9040700@cuddletech.com> Simon Phipps wrote: > I'd like there to be a call, yes; however, my flight to Chicago just > got changed and I will be in the air at the usual call time :-( > > I do think we need a discussion of how to deliver a constitution by > the deadline. Ben, I believe you are most likely to be able to conduct > this conversation; would you be able to chair the call in my absence > please? No. I am not a member of the CAB. I can help drive things from a working board but can not formally act as chair. In such a case, perhaps another member of the CAB can chair the meeting. Also, I think that its important for you to be on the call Simon. Your experience and position are too useful to pass over during such a call. Given the weight of the current discussions it may be best to simply push the call later in the day, or to Thursday. I'm up against a deadline at work tomorrow and certainly wouldn't be opposed. Besides, we're close to violating the 24-hour notice rule. benr. From al at logical-approach.com Tue Jun 6 12:30:34 2006 From: al at logical-approach.com (Al Hopper) Date: Tue, 6 Jun 2006 14:30:34 -0500 (CDT) Subject: [cab-discuss] Con-Call June 7th In-Reply-To: <4485D0F2.9040700@cuddletech.com> References: <448533CC.3060707@cuddletech.com> <85C731DF-F5BF-4FAA-B6A7-CE29DD7AEC1F@sun.com> <4485D0F2.9040700@cuddletech.com> Message-ID: On Tue, 6 Jun 2006, Ben Rockwood wrote: > Simon Phipps wrote: > > I'd like there to be a call, yes; however, my flight to Chicago just > > got changed and I will be in the air at the usual call time :-( > > > > I do think we need a discussion of how to deliver a constitution by > > the deadline. Ben, I believe you are most likely to be able to conduct > > this conversation; would you be able to chair the call in my absence > > please? > No. I am not a member of the CAB. I can help drive things from a > working board but can not formally act as chair. In such a case, > perhaps another member of the CAB can chair the meeting. > > Also, I think that its important for you to be on the call Simon. Your > experience and position are too useful to pass over during such a call. > > Given the weight of the current discussions it may be best to simply > push the call later in the day, or to Thursday. I'm up against a > deadline at work tomorrow and certainly wouldn't be opposed. Besides, > we're close to violating the 24-hour notice rule. I can also attend a call for Thurs noon pacific. Can everyone else make a Thursday call? 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 rich.teer at rite-group.com Tue Jun 6 13:45:12 2006 From: rich.teer at rite-group.com (Rich Teer) Date: Tue, 06 Jun 2006 13:45:12 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [cab-discuss] Con-Call June 7th In-Reply-To: References: <448533CC.3060707@cuddletech.com> <85C731DF-F5BF-4FAA-B6A7-CE29DD7AEC1F@sun.com> <4485D0F2.9040700@cuddletech.com> Message-ID: On Tue, 6 Jun 2006, Al Hopper wrote: > I can also attend a call for Thurs noon pacific. > Can everyone else make a Thursday call? I can. -- Rich Teer, SCNA, SCSA, OpenSolaris CAB member President, Rite Online Inc. Voice: +1 (250) 979-1638 URL: http://www.rite-group.com/rich From fielding at gbiv.com Tue Jun 6 15:03:09 2006 From: fielding at gbiv.com (Roy T. Fielding) Date: Tue, 6 Jun 2006 15:03:09 -0700 Subject: [cab-discuss] Con-Call June 7th In-Reply-To: References: <448533CC.3060707@cuddletech.com> <85C731DF-F5BF-4FAA-B6A7-CE29DD7AEC1F@sun.com> <4485D0F2.9040700@cuddletech.com> Message-ID: <08A5D4A3-40C8-44DE-959A-D34EE483435F@gbiv.com> On Jun 6, 2006, at 12:30 PM, Al Hopper wrote: > I can also attend a call for Thurs noon pacific. > Can everyone else make a Thursday call? Nope. Wednesday or Friday is okay for me, but I am on another call on Thursday noon-2pm pacific. I will also be on vacation all next week. ....Roy From Simon.Phipps at Sun.COM Tue Jun 6 15:40:13 2006 From: Simon.Phipps at Sun.COM (Simon Phipps) Date: Tue, 06 Jun 2006 23:40:13 +0100 Subject: [cab-discuss] Con-Call June 7th In-Reply-To: <08A5D4A3-40C8-44DE-959A-D34EE483435F@gbiv.com> References: <448533CC.3060707@cuddletech.com> <85C731DF-F5BF-4FAA-B6A7-CE29DD7AEC1F@sun.com> <4485D0F2.9040700@cuddletech.com> <08A5D4A3-40C8-44DE-959A-D34EE483435F@gbiv.com> Message-ID: Noon Friday would be fine, I am free until 1:30. Ben, as the discussion is about the Constitution I think it would be in your scope, for what it is worth. S. On Jun 6, 2006, at 23:03, Roy T. Fielding wrote: > On Jun 6, 2006, at 12:30 PM, Al Hopper wrote: >> I can also attend a call for Thurs noon pacific. >> Can everyone else make a Thursday call? > > Nope. Wednesday or Friday is okay for me, but I am on another call > on Thursday noon-2pm pacific. I will also be on vacation all next > week. > > ....Roy > _______________________________________________ > cab-discuss mailing list > cab-discuss at opensolaris.org From sch at eng.sun.com Tue Jun 6 15:50:49 2006 From: sch at eng.sun.com (Stephen Hahn) Date: Tue, 6 Jun 2006 15:50:49 -0700 Subject: [cab-discuss] A partially filled-in draft constitution In-Reply-To: <20060606184920.GA155463@eng.sun.com> References: <20060509230816.GA300304@eng.sun.com> <20060606184920.GA155463@eng.sun.com> Message-ID: <20060606225049.GA162131@eng.sun.com> * Stephen Hahn [2006-06-06 11:49]: > * Roy T. Fielding [2006-05-10 14:15]: > > On May 9, 2006, at 4:08 PM, Stephen Hahn wrote: > > Organization-wide participation > > 1. Observers (base class) > > 2. Contributors (made contributions, but do not yet have vote) > > 3. Citizens (major contributors given community governance) > > 4. Emeritus (former citizens on vacation) > > seems to fit naturally. (I don't know about citizens of an > organization, but I don't have a better word to suggest.) > > > Note that there is one class with the vote for community decisions > > (core) and one class with the vote for organization decisions > > (citizens), and an individual may belong to zero or more core groups > > and yet be counted as one citizen. > > One scenario that's been mentioned would be to have a community-core > be an organization-citizen; another, more lenient scenario would be > to have community-contributors be organization-citizens. Thoughts? Specifically with regard to the Organization case, I'm not sure there's much value in distinguishing between an Observer and a Contributor--not because we wouldn't value contributions, but because the notion of contributions has been evaluated by one or more communities. I'm inclined to go with 1. Basic member. (No vote.) 2. Voting member. (Votes in Organization elections and referenda.) 3. Emeritus voting member. (Former voting members.) for the types of membership. Becoming a Voting Member arises out of a Community saying that the Basic Member foo is now a Community Contributor--meaning that I like the second scenario I mentioned above. - Stephen From sch at eng.sun.com Tue Jun 6 15:53:10 2006 From: sch at eng.sun.com (Stephen Hahn) Date: Tue, 6 Jun 2006 15:53:10 -0700 Subject: [cab-discuss] Con-Call June 7th In-Reply-To: References: <448533CC.3060707@cuddletech.com> <85C731DF-F5BF-4FAA-B6A7-CE29DD7AEC1F@sun.com> <4485D0F2.9040700@cuddletech.com> <08A5D4A3-40C8-44DE-959A-D34EE483435F@gbiv.com> Message-ID: <20060606225309.GB162131@eng.sun.com> * Simon Phipps [2006-06-06 15:40]: > Noon Friday would be fine, I am free until 1:30. Fine for me; I'll be ten minutes late. Casper may find that time tough. - Stephen From Casper.Dik at sun.com Tue Jun 6 22:16:59 2006 From: Casper.Dik at sun.com (Casper.Dik at sun.com) Date: Wed, 07 Jun 2006 07:16:59 +0200 Subject: [cab-discuss] Con-Call June 7th In-Reply-To: <20060606225309.GB162131@eng.sun.com> References: <448533CC.3060707@cuddletech.com> <85C731DF-F5BF-4FAA-B6A7-CE29DD7AEC1F@sun.com> <4485D0F2.9040700@cuddletech.com> <08A5D4A3-40C8-44DE-959A-D34EE483435F@gbiv.com> <20060606225309.GB162131@eng.sun.com> Message-ID: <200606070516.k575Gx3D017618@vaticaan.holland.sun.com> >* Simon Phipps [2006-06-06 15:40]: >> Noon Friday would be fine, I am free until 1:30. > > Fine for me; I'll be ten minutes late. Casper may find that time I'm actually in Colorado but I will need to skip out of the whole day/whole week of meetings I'm doing here. 11am, over here, thatmakes. Casper From benr at cuddletech.com Wed Jun 7 00:34:05 2006 From: benr at cuddletech.com (Ben Rockwood) Date: Wed, 07 Jun 2006 00:34:05 -0700 Subject: [cab-discuss] A partially filled-in draft constitution In-Reply-To: <20060606225049.GA162131@eng.sun.com> References: <20060509230816.GA300304@eng.sun.com> <20060606184920.GA155463@eng.sun.com> <20060606225049.GA162131@eng.sun.com> Message-ID: <4486816D.4070603@cuddletech.com> Stephen Hahn wrote: >* Stephen Hahn [2006-06-06 11:49]: > > >>* Roy T. Fielding [2006-05-10 14:15]: >> >> >>>On May 9, 2006, at 4:08 PM, Stephen Hahn wrote: >>> Organization-wide participation >>> 1. Observers (base class) >>> 2. Contributors (made contributions, but do not yet have vote) >>> 3. Citizens (major contributors given community governance) >>> 4. Emeritus (former citizens on vacation) >>> >>> >> seems to fit naturally. (I don't know about citizens of an >> organization, but I don't have a better word to suggest.) >> >> >> >>>Note that there is one class with the vote for community decisions >>>(core) and one class with the vote for organization decisions >>>(citizens), and an individual may belong to zero or more core groups >>>and yet be counted as one citizen. >>> >>> >> One scenario that's been mentioned would be to have a community-core >> be an organization-citizen; another, more lenient scenario would be >> to have community-contributors be organization-citizens. Thoughts? >> >> > > Specifically with regard to the Organization case, I'm not sure > there's much value in distinguishing between an Observer and a > Contributor--not because we wouldn't value contributions, but because > the notion of contributions has been evaluated by one or more > communities. I'm inclined to go with > > 1. Basic member. (No vote.) > 2. Voting member. (Votes in Organization elections and referenda.) > 3. Emeritus voting member. (Former voting members.) > > for the types of membership. > > Becoming a Voting Member arises out of a Community saying that the > Basic Member foo is now a Community Contributor--meaning that I like > the second scenario I mentioned above. > > My question is in how we define these roles. The Debian Constitution is interesting in its layout, largely concerning itself with roles within the community. They break down each role in the document into effectively 3 sections: Powers, Appointment, and Procedure. More plaininly: what you can do, how you get it, and how you exercise it. This seems to be an interesting way of expressing things. Does the 3 point system (Basic, Voting, Emeritus) above still allow for the breakout between the Dev and Core Dev roles we've discussed in the past? Does this distinction hold any purpose? How, in practical terms, do we define "Basic Member"? In the no-vote basic member role I'd assume that would be anyone who's registered for the site, which is to mean, anyone who cares to be engaged. I'm also unsure of whether we're still going to tie membership status to the individual communities and/or projects. Keeping the Constitution as neutral on general organization of the project as possible seems a wise thing, but without addressing some level of organization the question of "who decides?" becomes an issue. Therefore it seems like Draft 01 is on the right track. We can beef up Article III, and solidify Article IV. Article V naturally falls into position then, although the current make up of Article V should thinned a bit. Not sure if I've getting off track here. If I am, let me know. benr. * * From rich.teer at rite-group.com Wed Jun 7 09:26:56 2006 From: rich.teer at rite-group.com (Rich Teer) Date: Wed, 07 Jun 2006 09:26:56 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [cab-discuss] Con-Call June 7th In-Reply-To: References: <448533CC.3060707@cuddletech.com> <85C731DF-F5BF-4FAA-B6A7-CE29DD7AEC1F@sun.com> <4485D0F2.9040700@cuddletech.com> <08A5D4A3-40C8-44DE-959A-D34EE483435F@gbiv.com> Message-ID: On Tue, 6 Jun 2006, Simon Phipps wrote: > Noon Friday would be fine, I am free until 1:30. Noon Friday is OK for me too. -- Rich Teer, SCNA, SCSA, OpenSolaris CAB member President, Rite Online Inc. Voice: +1 (250) 979-1638 URL: http://www.rite-group.com/rich From benr at cuddletech.com Wed Jun 7 10:18:03 2006 From: benr at cuddletech.com (Ben Rockwood) Date: Wed, 07 Jun 2006 10:18:03 -0700 Subject: [cab-discuss] Con-Call June 7th In-Reply-To: References: <448533CC.3060707@cuddletech.com> <85C731DF-F5BF-4FAA-B6A7-CE29DD7AEC1F@sun.com> <4485D0F2.9040700@cuddletech.com> <08A5D4A3-40C8-44DE-959A-D34EE483435F@gbiv.com> Message-ID: <44870A4B.6090409@cuddletech.com> Rich Teer wrote: > On Tue, 6 Jun 2006, Simon Phipps wrote: > > >> Noon Friday would be fine, I am free until 1:30. >> > > Noon Friday is OK for me too. > Looks like Friday is our best bet. Jim, can you please have a call in number for us on Friday at Noon? Thanks! benr. From Jim.Grisanzio at Sun.COM Thu Jun 8 14:58:07 2006 From: Jim.Grisanzio at Sun.COM (Jim Grisanzio) Date: Thu, 08 Jun 2006 14:58:07 -0700 Subject: [cab-discuss] Con-Call June 7th In-Reply-To: <44870A4B.6090409@cuddletech.com> References: <448533CC.3060707@cuddletech.com> <85C731DF-F5BF-4FAA-B6A7-CE29DD7AEC1F@sun.com> <4485D0F2.9040700@cuddletech.com> <08A5D4A3-40C8-44DE-959A-D34EE483435F@gbiv.com> <44870A4B.6090409@cuddletech.com> Message-ID: <44889D6F.6000802@sun.com> Call in numbers sent to the CAB's private list. Jim Ben Rockwood wrote: > Rich Teer wrote: > >> On Tue, 6 Jun 2006, Simon Phipps wrote: >> >> >> >>> Noon Friday would be fine, I am free until 1:30. >>> >> >> >> Noon Friday is OK for me too. >> > > Looks like Friday is our best bet. Jim, can you please have a call in > number for us on Friday at Noon? > > Thanks! > > benr. From sch at eng.sun.com Thu Jun 8 16:21:09 2006 From: sch at eng.sun.com (Stephen Hahn) Date: Thu, 8 Jun 2006 16:21:09 -0700 Subject: [cab-discuss] A draft constitution In-Reply-To: <20060509230816.GA300304@eng.sun.com> References: <20060509230816.GA300304@eng.sun.com> Message-ID: <20060608232108.GA170886@eng.sun.com> I went ahead (since Ben's comment showed that I wasn't in outer space) and finished a first draft of Draft 01. See http://www.genunix.org/wiki/index.php?title=OpenSolaris_Governance_Draft_01 Cheers Stephen From al at logical-approach.com Fri Jun 9 11:41:03 2006 From: al at logical-approach.com (Al Hopper) Date: Fri, 9 Jun 2006 13:41:03 -0500 (CDT) Subject: [cab-discuss] A draft constitution In-Reply-To: <20060608232108.GA170886@eng.sun.com> References: <20060509230816.GA300304@eng.sun.com> <20060608232108.GA170886@eng.sun.com> Message-ID: On Thu, 8 Jun 2006, Stephen Hahn wrote: > > I went ahead (since Ben's comment showed that I wasn't in outer > space) and finished a first draft of Draft 01. > > See > > http://www.genunix.org/wiki/index.php?title=OpenSolaris_Governance_Draft_01 I've got a couple of comments/corrections etc: III.3.2 ref: "approved Community". This should be changed to simply state "Community", since, in Article IV it states: "A Community must be approved by the Organization". Ergo, a Community, is, by definition, an approved community. Need a link to Article IV - which defines a Community. III.3.2 ref: "indefinitely renewable" Is there a renewal procedure? Are voting members automatically renewed? IV. Introductory paragraph should not have a leading "1." IV.1.3 ref: "Core Contributors" The term is used before being defined. (forward link required) V.3.2 incomplete last sentence VI.1.5 ref: "will provide a process for printed ballots to be submitted" clarification: Is the following a correct statement? A printable ballot form can be submitted electronically. However, if a ballet form were to be printed, the Committee must provide a mechanism for that printed form to be submitted. VI.2.6 ref: first sentance does not make sense. IX.1.1 This means that an important issue must wait until the next election before it can be presented to the membership for a vote? IX.1.2 Why a max of 4 Referenda? X.3 Assuming fewer than 10% vote; what happens next? Regards, 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 sch at eng.sun.com Fri Jun 9 11:59:07 2006 From: sch at eng.sun.com (Stephen Hahn) Date: Fri, 9 Jun 2006 11:59:07 -0700 Subject: [cab-discuss] A draft constitution In-Reply-To: References: <20060509230816.GA300304@eng.sun.com> <20060608232108.GA170886@eng.sun.com> Message-ID: <20060609185907.GC173808@eng.sun.com> * Al Hopper [2006-06-09 11:41]: > On Thu, 8 Jun 2006, Stephen Hahn wrote: > > > > > I went ahead (since Ben's comment showed that I wasn't in outer > > space) and finished a first draft of Draft 01. > > > > See > > > > http://www.genunix.org/wiki/index.php?title=OpenSolaris_Governance_Draft_01 > > I've got a couple of comments/corrections etc: > > III.3.2 ref: "approved Community". > > This should be changed to simply state "Community", since, in Article IV > it states: "A Community must be approved by the Organization". Ergo, a > Community, is, by definition, an approved community. True. I will come up with a better way to distinguish a candidate (or proposed Community). > Need a link to Article IV - which defines a Community. Agree. > III.3.2 > ref: "indefinitely renewable" > Is there a renewal procedure? > Are voting members automatically renewed? I was thinking that each Community, in the course of publishing its list of Contributors and Core Contributors, would deal with renewals. We can add explicit text to this point. The sense I've taken from previous conversations is that we felt that contributions had a lifetime, so that contributors would have to keep involved to maintain their say. > IV. Introductory paragraph should not have a leading "1." Will fix. (The contiguousness of paragraphs in Wikipedia's #/##/### numbering markup causes this.) > IV.1.3 ref: "Core Contributors" > The term is used before being defined. (forward link required) Will fix. > V.3.2 incomplete last sentence ... Ah. So this clause comes out of the point Roy raised (regarding the technical lead role) and my subconscious must have stopped me from writing anything controversial. The initial thought I had was that the Board should be able to request one or more contacts from Sun to attend a meeting. Let's talk about this on the phone call. > VI.1.5 > > ref: "will provide a process for printed ballots to be submitted" > clarification: Is the following a correct statement? > > A printable ballot form can be submitted electronically. However, if a > ballet form were to be printed, the Committee must provide a mechanism for > that printed form to be submitted. That's pretty close--close enough, even. (I don't think that the printable form need be electronically submittable. I'd be fine with a page that said: _ Joe _ James _ Bill >> Submit your vote << OR >> Print paper ballot << ) > VI.2.6 ref: first sentence does not make sense. Yep, this is a collision of formatting. The point is that grants given fewer that 90 days prior to an election are not valid grants for that election. And then there's a note about how the current OGB needs to write a little policy so that we can identify the current Voting Membership inside that boundary. > IX.1.1 This means that an important issue must wait until the next > election before it can be presented to the membership for a vote? We haven't talked about this before, so I am only setting a possible position. My assumption is that issues requiring the entire Voting Membership are "really big" and "rare". Both of these characteristics may be incorrectly assumed. > IX.1.2 Why a max of 4 Referenda? This is related and also not previously discussed directly: this point is bounding the number of such appeals so that the Board makes attempts at decisions, without always going to the membership. I also have been watching the Proposition process here in California... where you get such Referenda from your State, County, and City/Town across a host of issues. Some of easy to evaluate; many are designed (as far as I can tell) to trick you into believing they are easy to evaluate. > X.3 Assuming fewer than 10% vote; what happens next? The Board must resume discussion of the Referendum question. (Since there's a new Board, I thought there might be a fresh opportunity. In some senses, you could view the Referenda as "we, the Board, couldn't resolve this in our term and we don't want it dropped by our successors". It could be a mess, but a Membership wide mechanism seems necessary...) - Stephen -- Stephen Hahn, PhD Solaris Kernel Development, Sun Microsystems stephen.hahn at sun.com http://blogs.sun.com/sch/ From Sara.Dornsife at Sun.COM Mon Jun 12 09:33:46 2006 From: Sara.Dornsife at Sun.COM (Sara Dornsife) Date: Mon, 12 Jun 2006 11:33:46 -0500 Subject: [cab-discuss] Contributor Award Nominations Message-ID: <448D976A.3000101@sun.com> Hello CAB, The nominations are rolling in. You can see what we have so far at http://www.opensolaris.org/os/community/marketing/contributoraward/. The nominations close at the end of the day. Winners need to be posted by 8am Wed morning PT. So at some point tomorrow you guys need to select the winners and give the names to me and Derek so that we can get them posted. Please let me know how I can facilitate this process for you. Sara From rich.teer at rite-group.com Mon Jun 12 10:11:47 2006 From: rich.teer at rite-group.com (Rich Teer) Date: Mon, 12 Jun 2006 10:11:47 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [cab-discuss] Contributor Award Nominations In-Reply-To: <448D976A.3000101@sun.com> References: <448D976A.3000101@sun.com> Message-ID: On Mon, 12 Jun 2006, Sara Dornsife wrote: > Winners need to be posted by 8am Wed morning PT. So at some point tomorrow you > guys need to select the winners and give the names to me and Derek so that we > can get them posted. > > Please let me know how I can facilitate this process for you. I'm available for whatever needs to be done tomorrow (be it con-call, or email exchanges). Not sure about the others' availability, although Roy said something about being on a road trip without Net access until Wednesday. -- Rich Teer, SCNA, SCSA, OpenSolaris CAB member President, Rite Online Inc. Voice: +1 (250) 979-1638 URL: http://www.rite-group.com/rich From Sara.Dornsife at Sun.COM Mon Jun 12 10:16:53 2006 From: Sara.Dornsife at Sun.COM (Sara Dornsife) Date: Mon, 12 Jun 2006 12:16:53 -0500 Subject: [cab-discuss] Contributor Award Nominations In-Reply-To: References: <448D976A.3000101@sun.com> Message-ID: <448DA185.10408@sun.com> Thanks Rich. The final list needs to be 20 winners. I think Simon might be flying tomorrow too. We could be needing a larger voting group. Sara Rich Teer wrote: > On Mon, 12 Jun 2006, Sara Dornsife wrote: > >> Winners need to be posted by 8am Wed morning PT. So at some point tomorrow you >> guys need to select the winners and give the names to me and Derek so that we >> can get them posted. >> >> Please let me know how I can facilitate this process for you. > > I'm available for whatever needs to be done tomorrow (be it con-call, > or email exchanges). Not sure about the others' availability, although > Roy said something about being on a road trip without Net access until > Wednesday. > From rich.teer at rite-group.com Mon Jun 12 10:27:22 2006 From: rich.teer at rite-group.com (Rich Teer) Date: Mon, 12 Jun 2006 10:27:22 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [cab-discuss] Contributor Award Nominations In-Reply-To: <448DA185.10408@sun.com> References: <448D976A.3000101@sun.com> <448DA185.10408@sun.com> Message-ID: On Mon, 12 Jun 2006, Sara Dornsife wrote: > Thanks Rich. The final list needs to be 20 winners. I think Simon might be > flying tomorrow too. We could be needing a larger voting group. Aye. Unless we have < 20 distinct nominees, in which case, our job is real easy! PS I hereby claim credit for coming up with the acronym "OSCA" for this award. Our previous working name of "OSies" sounded too antipodean to 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 Sara.Dornsife at Sun.COM Mon Jun 12 20:20:07 2006 From: Sara.Dornsife at Sun.COM (Sara Dornsife) Date: Mon, 12 Jun 2006 22:20:07 -0500 Subject: [cab-discuss] Contributor Award Nominations In-Reply-To: References: <448D976A.3000101@sun.com> Message-ID: <448E2EE7.3030705@sun.com> Nominations are closed. We need the 20 winners. Sara Rich Teer wrote: > On Mon, 12 Jun 2006, Sara Dornsife wrote: > >> Winners need to be posted by 8am Wed morning PT. So at some point tomorrow you >> guys need to select the winners and give the names to me and Derek so that we >> can get them posted. >> >> Please let me know how I can facilitate this process for you. > > I'm available for whatever needs to be done tomorrow (be it con-call, > or email exchanges). Not sure about the others' availability, although > Roy said something about being on a road trip without Net access until > Wednesday. > From benr at cuddletech.com Tue Jun 13 03:14:02 2006 From: benr at cuddletech.com (Ben Rockwood) Date: Tue, 13 Jun 2006 03:14:02 -0700 Subject: [cab-discuss] Partial Review of Current Constitution Message-ID: <448E8FEA.4050004@cuddletech.com> The following is a collection of thoughts reguarding the current working-draft of the Constitution, designated "OpenSolaris Governance Draft 01" dated June 8th, 2006. Points in specific, by article: Article I. This article seems weak. It seems that this article should either become something of an "introduction", or be combined with Article II. Also, I dislike the term "Organization", although I admit no better suited term comes to mind. Article II. Section 1 says "fostering the evolution and adoption", while a similar statement is found in Article III ("concerning the development and adoption"). I see no reason to avoid using the same language in both places. Section 1.2 seems unneccisary. See comments reguarding Article I. Article III. I'm conflicted on the need for Article III in general. To some extent it feels redundant to the classes of membership in IV.2.1. However, it does provide a certain amount of flexability if roles within the organization are latter ammended or redefined. Three classes of membership are noted, and yet 4 sections are present. III.1 should be moved up into the paragraph for clarity. Article IV. Section 1 seems useless and vague. Approval and creation of a community should be outlined clearly for all to see, not left up to a future process within the constraints of section 1. Even without a detailed implementation outline, the base guidelines should be explicit. Futhermore, section 1 should also address the means by which a new community is proposed. In Article III "three classes of membership" are provided, however in IV.2.1.2 "four classes of membership" are listed. At the very least, IV.2.1's use of the word "membership" should be changed to a less contraditory "participation". Within IV.2.1 (Participants) definition of affiliates and emeritus may be reduntant to the earlier definitions of membership classes in Article III. Emeritus can simply be removed, although removal of "Affiliate" may require renaming the "Basic Member" to "Affiliate Member". Both IV.2.1.2 and IV.2.1.3 (Contrib and Core Contrib) may need to be expanded. Within IV.3.1 the phrase "in an acceptable manner" is too vague. Furthermore, what if a community chooses to terminate? IV.3.1.1 states that "grants of Voting Status", which would mean that if I'm a voting member of the community under investigation I loose my individual right to vote. This seems unfair to the individual and should not effect them. If, for some reason, an individuals membership class should change, that could be handled as a seperate matter not stipulated here but as a power of the OGB. Article V. Reguarding the number of members on the OGB (V.1.1), I'll state that I personally prefer a 5 member board, however I also see the benefit of having 2 extra persons for redundancy purposes. I'll omit comments on the remaining articles for now... Thoughts in general: In general, the constitution needs to be more lifecycle oriented and shoud, in particular, answer the following: 1) How do I start a new community? 2) What do I have to do when I have a community? 3) What happens when the community has fulfilled its purpose or is otherwise no longer pertinant? 4) How do I become a member? 5) What rights do I have as a member? 6) Under what circumstances can my membership be revoked? 7) As a (role) what rights do I have? 8) As a (role) how can I be removed from that role? etc.. Some of these are answered, some are not. With reguards to communities, I still feel that there needs to be a single responsable person per community. Call that person a "lead" or "chair" or whatever you like, but leaving Core Contributors within a community to work it out amongst themselves doesn't seem to be in the spirit of goverance. How that person is chosen, elect, or whatever, is the concern only of the community itself, however I still think that each community has, at minimum, two obligations: 1) Publish and keep current a list of your communities members and their status, and 2) Appoint 1 person from the core contributors to serve as a Lead, who is responsable for interfacing with the OGB, etc. I'm unclear on the requirement of the 2 standing commitees. Both of these (as outlined in Article VI) can be preformed by the CAB. Creating a committee consisting of the full OGB in addition to 4 contributors seems overkill. Such a committee may be needed in the future, but I don't see why it should be mandated in the constitution at this point. Also, I'm curious as to whether the constitution should say something reguarding "undefined bodies", such as projects. It may not say anything specific, but there should be something reguarding how entities outside the definition of a community are still handled under the umbrella of the OGB. benr. From webmink at sun.com Tue Jun 13 08:25:16 2006 From: webmink at sun.com (Simon Phipps) Date: Tue, 13 Jun 2006 08:25:16 -0700 Subject: [cab-discuss] Contributor Award Nominations In-Reply-To: <448E2EE7.3030705@sun.com> References: <448D976A.3000101@sun.com> <448E2EE7.3030705@sun.com> Message-ID: <32916268-7F91-44CE-85EC-B3C4B1F5DB25@sun.com> Attached is a spreadsheet listing all the people mentioned on the awards page. I have tallied how many times each person is mentioned. The total number of people mentioned more than once is 22. With due respect to Sara and Laura (who were both mentioned twice), they are the organisers of the award and should probably not have to send themselves shirts :-) I therefore propose that the remaining 20 people be declared the winners. They are: Bryan Cantrill Dennis Clark James Dickens Moinak Ghosh Jim Grisanzio Stephen Hahn Al Hopper Jurgen Keil Stephen Lau Adam Leventhal Rich Lowe Robert Milkowski Dave Miner Michelle Olsen Ben Rockwood Joerg Schilling Eric Schrock Rich Teer Lisa Week Keith Weslowski What do others think? S. -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: OpenSolaris Awards Votes.ods Type: application/vnd.oasis.opendocument.spreadsheet Size: 9528 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- On Jun 12, 2006, at 20:20, Sara Dornsife wrote: > Nominations are closed. We need the 20 winners. > Sara > > > Rich Teer wrote: >> On Mon, 12 Jun 2006, Sara Dornsife wrote: >>> Winners need to be posted by 8am Wed morning PT. So at some point >>> tomorrow you >>> guys need to select the winners and give the names to me and >>> Derek so that we >>> can get them posted. >>> >>> Please let me know how I can facilitate this process for you. >> I'm available for whatever needs to be done tomorrow (be it con-call, >> or email exchanges). Not sure about the others' availability, >> although >> Roy said something about being on a road trip without Net access >> until >> Wednesday. > _______________________________________________ > cab-discuss mailing list > cab-discuss at opensolaris.org From rich.teer at rite-group.com Tue Jun 13 08:37:51 2006 From: rich.teer at rite-group.com (Rich Teer) Date: Tue, 13 Jun 2006 08:37:51 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [cab-discuss] Contributor Award Nominations In-Reply-To: <32916268-7F91-44CE-85EC-B3C4B1F5DB25@sun.com> References: <448D976A.3000101@sun.com> <448E2EE7.3030705@sun.com> <32916268-7F91-44CE-85EC-B3C4B1F5DB25@sun.com> Message-ID: On Tue, 13 Jun 2006, Simon Phipps wrote: > Attached is a spreadsheet listing all the people mentioned on the awards page. > I have tallied how many times each person is mentioned. The total number of Many thanks for doing this, Simon; I was just about to start doing so myself! Alas, I can't read the ODF spreadsheet as the STarOffice that comes with build 33 of Nevada doesn't support it. :-( > people mentioned more than once is 22. With due respect to Sara and Laura (who > were both mentioned twice), they are the organisers of the award and should > probably not have to send themselves shirts :-) I therefore propose that the > remaining 20 people be declared the winners. They are: I concur, although for the record I think that in future the decision should be based on factors other than the number of nominations*. Playing devil's advocate, it is possible that some deserving soul gets only one nomination, but I guess we can cross that bridge when we have more potential winners. * I doubt I'm the only person who didn't nominate some people purely because they already had nominations. In short, I agree with your list of winners! > What do others think? I think I'd be very surprised if Sara didn't order 22 shirts... :-) -- 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 Tue Jun 13 09:07:04 2006 From: al at logical-approach.com (Al Hopper) Date: Tue, 13 Jun 2006 11:07:04 -0500 (CDT) Subject: [cab-discuss] Contributor Award Nominations In-Reply-To: <32916268-7F91-44CE-85EC-B3C4B1F5DB25@sun.com> References: <448D976A.3000101@sun.com> <448E2EE7.3030705@sun.com> <32916268-7F91-44CE-85EC-B3C4B1F5DB25@sun.com> Message-ID: On Tue, 13 Jun 2006, Simon Phipps wrote: > Attached is a spreadsheet listing all the people mentioned on the > awards page. I have tallied how many times each person is mentioned. > The total number of people mentioned more than once is 22. With due > respect to Sara and Laura (who were both mentioned twice), they are > the organisers of the award and should probably not have to send > themselves shirts :-) I therefore propose that the remaining 20 > people be declared the winners. They are: > > Bryan Cantrill > Dennis Clark > James Dickens > Moinak Ghosh > Jim Grisanzio > Stephen Hahn > Al Hopper > Jurgen Keil > Stephen Lau > Adam Leventhal > Rich Lowe > Robert Milkowski > Dave Miner > Michelle Olsen > Ben Rockwood > Joerg Schilling > Eric Schrock > Rich Teer > Lisa Week > Keith Weslowski > > What do others think? Is it appropriate for OGB members to be awardees? Since the awards are being judged by the OGB. In any case I'm willing to drop myself from the list if others see this as a conflict of interest. Regards, 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 Jun 13 09:08:40 2006 From: Sara.Dornsife at Sun.COM (Sara Dornsife) Date: Tue, 13 Jun 2006 11:08:40 -0500 Subject: [cab-discuss] List of nominees Message-ID: <448EE308.2070406@sun.com> This is the list that I tallied along with the number of times that they were nominated. I count 54 people and 104 votes. Sara Ben Rockwood 8 Dennis Clarke 5 Bryan Cantrill 2 James Dickens 2 Joerg Schilling 8 Adam Leventhal 2 Derek Cicero 1 Moinak Ghosh 4 Robert Milkowski 3 Dave Miner 2 Brendan Gregg 1 Jim Grisanzio 5 Rich Teer 2 Keith Wesolowski 3 Eric Schrock 1 J?rgen Keil 3 Erast Benson 1 Al Hopper 2 Casper Dik 1 Rich Lowe 3 Alan Coopersmith 1 Lisa Week 2 Stephen Potter 1 Bonnie Corwin 1 Karyn Ritter 1 Sumitha Prashanth 1 Glenn Herteg 1 Rainer Heilke 2 Joey Guo 1 Stephen Lau 2 Michelle Olsen 3 Chandan BN 1 Frank Hofman 1 Eric Shrock 2 Cyril Plysko 1 Sarah Jelinek 1 Masayuki Murayama 1 Simon Phipps 1 Tim Foster 1 Ginnie Wray 2 Sam Falkner 1 John Bowman 1 Jeff Bonwick 1 Matt Ahrens 1 Greg Shaw 1 Danek Duvall 1 Liane Praza 1 Sara Dornsife 3 Laura Ramsey 3 Chen Xiangqun 1 Xiang Yong 1 Stephen Hahn 1 Alan Duboff 1 Mike Kupfer 1 From rich.teer at rite-group.com Tue Jun 13 09:14:50 2006 From: rich.teer at rite-group.com (Rich Teer) Date: Tue, 13 Jun 2006 09:14:50 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [cab-discuss] Contributor Award Nominations In-Reply-To: References: <448D976A.3000101@sun.com> <448E2EE7.3030705@sun.com> <32916268-7F91-44CE-85EC-B3C4B1F5DB25@sun.com> Message-ID: On Tue, 13 Jun 2006, Al Hopper wrote: > Is it appropriate for OGB members to be awardees? Since the awards are > being judged by the OGB. In any case I'm willing to drop myself from the > list if others see this as a conflict of interest. That crossed my mind too, but I don't think it's a conflict of interest. It's not as if we nominated ourselves. -- Rich Teer, SCNA, SCSA, OpenSolaris CAB member President, Rite Online Inc. Voice: +1 (250) 979-1638 URL: http://www.rite-group.com/rich From Susan.Weber at Sun.COM Tue Jun 13 09:30:18 2006 From: Susan.Weber at Sun.COM (Susan Weber) Date: Tue, 13 Jun 2006 09:30:18 -0700 Subject: [cab-discuss] Contributor Award Nominations In-Reply-To: <32916268-7F91-44CE-85EC-B3C4B1F5DB25@sun.com> References: <448D976A.3000101@sun.com> <448E2EE7.3030705@sun.com> <32916268-7F91-44CE-85EC-B3C4B1F5DB25@sun.com> Message-ID: <448EE81A.4090502@sun.com> An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From Casper.Dik at Sun.COM Tue Jun 13 10:11:14 2006 From: Casper.Dik at Sun.COM (Casper.Dik at Sun.COM) Date: Tue, 13 Jun 2006 19:11:14 +0200 Subject: [cab-discuss] Contributor Award Nominations In-Reply-To: References: <448D976A.3000101@sun.com> <448E2EE7.3030705@sun.com> <32916268-7F91-44CE-85EC-B3C4B1F5DB25@sun.com> Message-ID: <200606131711.k5DHBENQ004098@vaticaan.holland.sun.com> >On Tue, 13 Jun 2006, Al Hopper wrote: > >> Is it appropriate for OGB members to be awardees? Since the awards are >> being judged by the OGB. In any case I'm willing to drop myself from the >> list if others see this as a conflict of interest. > >That crossed my mind too, but I don't think it's a conflict of interest. >It's not as if we nominated ourselves. I'd still think it doesn't look "right". The "nominations" aren't really pure votes and in actual life the OGB look not at the numbers, but should also look at the motivation. The number of nominations does count, but in future the actual reason why somewhat is nominated is more important, IMHO. (I've half a mind to strike all Sun employees off too) Casper From keith.wesolowski at sun.com Tue Jun 13 10:11:35 2006 From: keith.wesolowski at sun.com (Keith M Wesolowski) Date: Tue, 13 Jun 2006 10:11:35 -0700 Subject: [cab-discuss] Contributor Award Nominations In-Reply-To: References: <448D976A.3000101@sun.com> <448E2EE7.3030705@sun.com> <32916268-7F91-44CE-85EC-B3C4B1F5DB25@sun.com> Message-ID: <20060613171135.GB15758@sun.com> On Tue, Jun 13, 2006 at 09:14:50AM -0700, Rich Teer wrote: > > Is it appropriate for OGB members to be awardees? Since the awards are > > being judged by the OGB. In any case I'm willing to drop myself from the > > list if others see this as a conflict of interest. > > That crossed my mind too, but I don't think it's a conflict of interest. > It's not as if we nominated ourselves. While I agree that OGB members may be worthy recipients, the mere fact that the OGB has agreed to act as judge makes this a conflict of interest. While it's true that you didn't nominate yourself, there's still an apparent conflict of interest in that you could have put someone else up to nominating you, perhaps in exchange for favourable treatment in the future. Sure, it's just a T-shirt, but to me the appearance of impropriety is intolerable in even the most trivial matters. The only way to be clean is to be *CLEAN*. There are several worthy candidates with only a single nomination who could be selected in place of OGB members. I admit that this seems a bit unfair, since the rules for nominations should have specified that the OGB would judge the nominees and that its members are therefore ineligible (along with the contest organisers), and that was not done. Perhaps if it had been, some additional worthy nominees would have been on the list. -- Keith M Wesolowski "Sir, we're surrounded!" Solaris Kernel Team "Excellent; we can attack in any direction!" From John.Plocher at Sun.Com Tue Jun 13 10:55:08 2006 From: John.Plocher at Sun.Com (John Plocher) Date: Tue, 13 Jun 2006 10:55:08 -0700 Subject: [cab-discuss] Contributor Award Nominations In-Reply-To: <200606131711.k5DHBENQ004098@vaticaan.holland.sun.com> References: <448D976A.3000101@sun.com> <448E2EE7.3030705@sun.com> <32916268-7F91-44CE-85EC-B3C4B1F5DB25@sun.com> <200606131711.k5DHBENQ004098@vaticaan.holland.sun.com> Message-ID: <448EFBFC.8090304@Sun.Com> +-- Casper.Dik at Sun.COM wrote: > The "nominations" aren't > really pure votes and in actual life the OGB look not at the numbers, > but should also look at the motivation. While it is convenient to say "we were looking for ~20, and here is a simplistic way to get ~20, it smells wrong. At a minimum, there should be a sentence or two saying what this person *did* that makes them a good example of what we are proud of in this community. If all they did was be popular or visible, is that enough? Yes it is a lot of work, but I am worried that this will turn into a "last minute attempt at generating meaningless marketing splash" instead of a "heartfelt expression of appreciation and recognition of the people who have become respected leaders in our community". Recognition is good, but meaningful recognition is much better. -John Examples from Sara's list: Ben Rockwood CAB member, active in CAB discussions, 37 posts to opensolaris-discuss on a variety of topics that indicate his varied interests and drive to help others... (Oh, and a judge for these nominations, so ineligible for any award :-) Dennis Clarke Blastwave promoter, webmaster. Active in XXX and YYY communities, 223 posts to os-discuss showing an overwhelming interest in ZZZZ.... Bryan Cantrill BrandZ, DTrace and OS internals expert, Solaris historian, .... ... I'm not even going to attempt to mess up the reputations of the other 40+ people on the list - that's someone else's job ... :-) From benr at cuddletech.com Tue Jun 13 10:51:12 2006 From: benr at cuddletech.com (Ben Rockwood) Date: Tue, 13 Jun 2006 10:51:12 -0700 Subject: [cab-discuss] Contributor Award Nominations In-Reply-To: <32916268-7F91-44CE-85EC-B3C4B1F5DB25@sun.com> References: <448D976A.3000101@sun.com> <448E2EE7.3030705@sun.com> <32916268-7F91-44CE-85EC-B3C4B1F5DB25@sun.com> Message-ID: <448EFB10.40307@cuddletech.com> Simon Phipps wrote: > Attached is a spreadsheet listing all the people mentioned on the > awards page. I have tallied how many times each person is mentioned. > The total number of people mentioned more than once is 22. With due > respect to Sara and Laura (who were both mentioned twice), they are > the organisers of the award and should probably not have to send > themselves shirts :-) I therefore propose that the remaining 20 > people be declared the winners. They are: The awards aren't about tshirts, they're about recognition. Sara and Laura both deserve that honor. It is, imho, outrageous to me to suggest that simply because they did the work of putting together the event that they should be excluded from it. They were nominated by independent persons, just like everyone else, with no special privilege. If awards aren't given to Laura and Sara, please remove my name from the list of "winners" and give mine to one of them. benr. From benr at cuddletech.com Tue Jun 13 11:02:56 2006 From: benr at cuddletech.com (Ben Rockwood) Date: Tue, 13 Jun 2006 11:02:56 -0700 Subject: [cab-discuss] Contributor Award Nominations In-Reply-To: <448EFBFC.8090304@Sun.Com> References: <448D976A.3000101@sun.com> <448E2EE7.3030705@sun.com> <32916268-7F91-44CE-85EC-B3C4B1F5DB25@sun.com> <200606131711.k5DHBENQ004098@vaticaan.holland.sun.com> <448EFBFC.8090304@Sun.Com> Message-ID: <448EFDD0.4050305@cuddletech.com> John Plocher wrote: > +-- Casper.Dik at Sun.COM wrote: >> The "nominations" aren't >> really pure votes and in actual life the OGB look not at the numbers, >> but should also look at the motivation. > > While it is convenient to say "we were looking for ~20, and here > is a simplistic way to get ~20, it smells wrong. > > At a minimum, there should be a sentence or two saying what > this person *did* that makes them a good example of what we > are proud of in this community. If all they did was be > popular or visible, is that enough? > > Yes it is a lot of work, but I am worried that this will > turn into a "last minute attempt at generating meaningless > marketing splash" instead of a "heartfelt expression of > appreciation and recognition of the people who have become > respected leaders in our community". > > Recognition is good, but meaningful recognition is much better. > > -John > > Examples from Sara's list: > > Ben Rockwood > CAB member, active in CAB discussions, 37 posts to > opensolaris-discuss on a variety of topics that indicate > his varied interests and drive to help others... > (Oh, and a judge for these nominations, so ineligible > for any award :-) Thanks for the thought John, but I'm not a member of the CAB. A list of reasons for each nomination was required for submission, those reasons have simply been stripped from the list sent to the CAB. Please refer to the nominations page: http://www.opensolaris.org/os/community/marketing/contributoraward/ benr. From John.Plocher at Sun.Com Tue Jun 13 11:09:48 2006 From: John.Plocher at Sun.Com (John Plocher) Date: Tue, 13 Jun 2006 11:09:48 -0700 Subject: [cab-discuss] Contributor Award Nominations In-Reply-To: <448EFBFC.8090304@Sun.Com> References: <448D976A.3000101@sun.com> <448E2EE7.3030705@sun.com> <32916268-7F91-44CE-85EC-B3C4B1F5DB25@sun.com> <200606131711.k5DHBENQ004098@vaticaan.holland.sun.com> <448EFBFC.8090304@Sun.Com> Message-ID: <448EFF6C.3020008@Sun.Com> +-- John Plocher wrote: > Ben Rockwood > CAB member, active in CAB discussions, > ... I'm not even going to attempt to mess up the reputations Of course, I was thinking "Rich Teer" all the while typing "Ben Rockwood"; this simply proves that my brain isn't always connected to my fingers, and that someone else needs to generate the simple "bio" information. Apologies to both Ben and Rich, sorry for any confusion. -John From Casper.Dik at Sun.COM Tue Jun 13 11:35:44 2006 From: Casper.Dik at Sun.COM (Casper.Dik at Sun.COM) Date: Tue, 13 Jun 2006 20:35:44 +0200 Subject: [cab-discuss] Contributor Award Nominations In-Reply-To: <448EFDD0.4050305@cuddletech.com> References: <448D976A.3000101@sun.com> <448E2EE7.3030705@sun.com> <32916268-7F91-44CE-85EC-B3C4B1F5DB25@sun.com> <200606131711.k5DHBENQ004098@vaticaan.holland.sun.com> <448EFBFC.8090304@Sun.Com> <448EFDD0.4050305@cuddletech.com> Message-ID: <200606131835.k5DIZiTm010945@vaticaan.holland.sun.com> >> Examples from Sara's list: >> >> Ben Rockwood >> CAB member, active in CAB discussions, 37 posts to >> opensolaris-discuss on a variety of topics that indicate >> his varied interests and drive to help others... >> (Oh, and a judge for these nominations, so ineligible >> for any award :-) > >Thanks for the thought John, but I'm not a member of the CAB. Perhaps John was being ironic? That's what I thought when I read your entry, but I wasn't to sure after the other two, I must admit. I guess we need to scratch one vote for ben .... >A list of reasons for each nomination was required for submission, those >reasons have simply been stripped from the list sent to the CAB. Please >refer to the nominations page: > >http://www.opensolaris.org/os/community/marketing/contributoraward/ And they should be used. But I do believe that both the organizers and the jury should be excluded from the awards. That people believed they deserved a nomination is recognition by itself. It's not impropriety; it's the appearance thereof which needs to be addressed. Now the rules were incompletely defined, but let it be known that this member of the jury will cast his vote against any of the above and against the overly simplistic awarding. Multiple nominations should still count, but if someone nominated for the wrong reasons the nomination should not be counted; and I believe the jury should then select those with the strongest arguments from those with a single vote. Casper From Eric.Boutilier at Sun.COM Tue Jun 13 11:42:02 2006 From: Eric.Boutilier at Sun.COM (Eric Boutilier) Date: Tue, 13 Jun 2006 13:42:02 -0500 (CDT) Subject: [cab-discuss] Re: Contributor Award Nominations In-Reply-To: <32916268-7F91-44CE-85EC-B3C4B1F5DB25@sun.com> References: <448D976A.3000101@sun.com> <448E2EE7.3030705@sun.com> <32916268-7F91-44CE-85EC-B3C4B1F5DB25@sun.com> Message-ID: How about: Remove CAB members from eligibility, then: Do a blind selection where each CAB member submits 4 names. Delete duplicates, then repeat submitting 1 name each, repeat 'til you reach >= 15. Then, going alphabetically by CAB member's name (or something arbitrary like that), submit, non-blind, one name each 'til you get to 20. Eric From rich.teer at rite-group.com Tue Jun 13 11:38:58 2006 From: rich.teer at rite-group.com (Rich Teer) Date: Tue, 13 Jun 2006 11:38:58 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [cab-discuss] Contributor Award Nominations In-Reply-To: <448EFF6C.3020008@Sun.Com> References: <448D976A.3000101@sun.com> <448E2EE7.3030705@sun.com> <32916268-7F91-44CE-85EC-B3C4B1F5DB25@sun.com> <200606131711.k5DHBENQ004098@vaticaan.holland.sun.com> <448EFBFC.8090304@Sun.Com> <448EFF6C.3020008@Sun.Com> Message-ID: On Tue, 13 Jun 2006, John Plocher wrote: > Of course, I was thinking "Rich Teer" all the while typing > "Ben Rockwood"; this simply proves that my brain isn't always > connected to my fingers, and that someone else needs to generate > the simple "bio" information. Apologies to both Ben and Rich, > sorry for any confusion. No worries. For future reference, it's easy to remember: Ben's the good looking one. The thought of me in a skirt^H^H^H^H^HKilt is not a good one! :-) -- Rich Teer, SCNA, SCSA, OpenSolaris CAB member President, Rite Online Inc. Voice: +1 (250) 979-1638 URL: http://www.rite-group.com/rich From Eric.Boutilier at Sun.COM Tue Jun 13 11:50:43 2006 From: Eric.Boutilier at Sun.COM (Eric Boutilier) Date: Tue, 13 Jun 2006 13:50:43 -0500 (CDT) Subject: [cab-discuss] Re: Contributor Award Nominations In-Reply-To: References: <448D976A.3000101@sun.com> <448E2EE7.3030705@sun.com> <32916268-7F91-44CE-85EC-B3C4B1F5DB25@sun.com> Message-ID: On Tue, 13 Jun 2006, Eric Boutilier wrote: > How about: Remove CAB members from eligibility, then: Do a blind selection > where each > CAB member submits 4 names. Delete duplicates, then repeat submitting 1 > name each, repeat 'til you reach >= 15. Then, going alphabetically by CAB > member's name (or something arbitrary like that), submit, non-blind, one > name each 'til you get to 20. Come to think of it, simpler and just as effective is just go round-robin and make 4 (non-blind) selections each. Eric From webmink at sun.com Tue Jun 13 10:10:50 2006 From: webmink at sun.com (Simon Phipps) Date: Tue, 13 Jun 2006 10:10:50 -0700 Subject: [cab-discuss] Contributor Award Nominations In-Reply-To: <448EE81A.4090502@sun.com> References: <448D976A.3000101@sun.com> <448E2EE7.3030705@sun.com> <32916268-7F91-44CE-85EC-B3C4B1F5DB25@sun.com> <448EE81A.4090502@sun.com> Message-ID: <096E2991-AC56-4D2D-B5D7-2A26389AFE58@sun.com> Actually yes, now I go back to the sheet I see she was listed twice with one vote. S. On Jun 13, 2006, at 09:30, Susan Weber wrote: > Wasn't Ginnie (Virginia) Wray mentioned twice? > I only ask, as I know I was the second person to nominate her. :) > > -Sue > > Simon Phipps wrote: >> Attached is a spreadsheet listing all the people mentioned on the >> awards page. I have tallied how many times each person is >> mentioned. The total number of people mentioned more than once is >> 22. With due respect to Sara and Laura (who were both mentioned >> twice), they are the organisers of the award and should probably >> not have to send themselves shirts :-) I therefore propose that >> the remaining 20 people be declared the winners. They are: >> >> Bryan Cantrill >> Dennis Clark >> James Dickens >> Moinak Ghosh >> Jim Grisanzio >> Stephen Hahn >> Al Hopper >> Jurgen Keil >> Stephen Lau >> Adam Leventhal >> Rich Lowe >> Robert Milkowski >> Dave Miner >> Michelle Olsen >> Ben Rockwood >> Joerg Schilling >> Eric Schrock >> Rich Teer >> Lisa Week >> Keith Weslowski >> >> What do others think? >> >> S. >> >> >> >> On Jun 12, 2006, at 20:20, Sara Dornsife wrote: >> >>> Nominations are closed. We need the 20 winners. >>> Sara >>> >>> >>> Rich Teer wrote: >>>> On Mon, 12 Jun 2006, Sara Dornsife wrote: >>>>> Winners need to be posted by 8am Wed morning PT. So at some >>>>> point tomorrow you >>>>> guys need to select the winners and give the names to me and >>>>> Derek so that we >>>>> can get them posted. >>>>> >>>>> Please let me know how I can facilitate this process for you. >>>> I'm available for whatever needs to be done tomorrow (be it con- >>>> call, >>>> or email exchanges). Not sure about the others' availability, >>>> although >>>> Roy said something about being on a road trip without Net >>>> access until >>>> Wednesday. >>> _______________________________________________ >>> cab-discuss mailing list >>> cab-discuss at opensolaris.org >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> cab-discuss mailing list >> cab-discuss at opensolaris.org >> -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From sara.dornsife at sun.com Tue Jun 13 13:34:53 2006 From: sara.dornsife at sun.com (Sara Dornsife) Date: Tue, 13 Jun 2006 13:34:53 PDT Subject: [cab-discuss] Re: Contributor Award Nominations In-Reply-To: <448EFB10.40307@cuddletech.com> Message-ID: <19489167.1150230923824.JavaMail.suncom@oss1> Thank you Ben, I appreciate the sentiment :). Do you have a suggestion about how we get to the list of 20? Changes to Simon's proposal or a new way? Sara This message posted from opensolaris.org From sara.dornsife at sun.com Tue Jun 13 13:36:48 2006 From: sara.dornsife at sun.com (Sara Dornsife) Date: Tue, 13 Jun 2006 13:36:48 PDT Subject: [cab-discuss] Re: Contributor Award Nominations In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <13574100.1150231038900.JavaMail.suncom@oss1> All except for eliminating the CAB members, this is a good suggestion. Rich, for example, has not been nominated because of his work with the CAB over the past year +, he's been nominated for his book and other efforts - very deserving reasons. Sara This message posted from opensolaris.org From Casper.Dik at Sun.COM Tue Jun 13 13:44:29 2006 From: Casper.Dik at Sun.COM (Casper.Dik at Sun.COM) Date: Tue, 13 Jun 2006 22:44:29 +0200 Subject: [cab-discuss] Re: Contributor Award Nominations In-Reply-To: <13574100.1150231038900.JavaMail.suncom@oss1> References: <13574100.1150231038900.JavaMail.suncom@oss1> Message-ID: <200606132044.k5DKiTSL021286@vaticaan.holland.sun.com> >All except for eliminating the CAB members, this is a good suggestion. >Rich, for example, has not been nominated because of his work with the >CAB over the past year +, he's been nominated for his b ook and other >efforts - very deserving reasons. That's not the point Keith and I are making: people in the jury should be ineligible, even if they made everyone in the world run Solaris and not Windows, HP-UX, AIX, OpenVMS, Tru64, Linux or whatever. It's like making world peace but being in the Nobel Prize committee; you can't win. Casper From Sara.Dornsife at Sun.COM Tue Jun 13 13:49:53 2006 From: Sara.Dornsife at Sun.COM (Sara Dornsife) Date: Tue, 13 Jun 2006 15:49:53 -0500 Subject: [cab-discuss] Re: Contributor Award Nominations In-Reply-To: <200606132044.k5DKiTSL021286@vaticaan.holland.sun.com> References: <13574100.1150231038900.JavaMail.suncom@oss1> <200606132044.k5DKiTSL021286@vaticaan.holland.sun.com> Message-ID: <448F24F1.9020509@sun.com> Is there another suggestion? Sara Casper.Dik at Sun.COM wrote: >> All except for eliminating the CAB members, this is a good suggestion. >> Rich, for example, has not been nominated because of his work with the >> CAB over the past year +, he's been nominated for his b ook and other >> efforts - very deserving reasons. > > That's not the point Keith and I are making: people in the jury > should be ineligible, even if they made everyone in the world run > Solaris and not Windows, HP-UX, AIX, OpenVMS, Tru64, Linux or whatever. > > It's like making world peace but being in the Nobel Prize committee; > you can't win. > > Casper From Casper.Dik at Sun.COM Tue Jun 13 13:52:23 2006 From: Casper.Dik at Sun.COM (Casper.Dik at Sun.COM) Date: Tue, 13 Jun 2006 22:52:23 +0200 Subject: [cab-discuss] Re: Contributor Award Nominations In-Reply-To: <448F24F1.9020509@sun.com> References: <13574100.1150231038900.JavaMail.suncom@oss1> <200606132044.k5DKiTSL021286@vaticaan.holland.sun.com> <448F24F1.9020509@sun.com> Message-ID: <200606132052.k5DKqNWT021948@vaticaan.holland.sun.com> >Is there another suggestion? Well, yes: cull the "ineligible" and than select the best motivated ones from the rest. Casper From benr at cuddletech.com Tue Jun 13 14:05:40 2006 From: benr at cuddletech.com (Ben Rockwood) Date: Tue, 13 Jun 2006 14:05:40 -0700 Subject: [cab-discuss] Re: Contributor Award Nominations In-Reply-To: <19489167.1150230923824.JavaMail.suncom@oss1> References: <19489167.1150230923824.JavaMail.suncom@oss1> Message-ID: <448F28A4.2070800@cuddletech.com> Sara Dornsife wrote: > Thank you Ben, I appreciate the sentiment :). Do you have a suggestion about how we get to the list of 20? Changes to Simon's proposal or a new way? This is a CAB matter and I'm not a CAB member, therefore it is inappropriate to pose a suggestion. ... but since I was asked: It seems pretty cut and dry. It can be handled in one of two ways: 1) Consider nominations similar to votes, more nominations and the more weight that person has. Thus, if we look only at persons with more than 1 nomination there are 23 names. From that, 11 have 2 nominations each. Thus, I would discuss which 3 of those persons should be removed from the list based on the descriptions on the nomination page: http://www.opensolaris.org/os/community/marketing/contributoraward/ 2) Consider all nominations equal, regardless of the number of nominations present. Have each CAB member submit their list of names, based on merit, not personal preference, correlate those lists and then debate as need be. T-shirts aren't important, but recognition is. benr. From John.Plocher at Sun.Com Tue Jun 13 14:17:32 2006 From: John.Plocher at Sun.Com (John Plocher) Date: Tue, 13 Jun 2006 14:17:32 -0700 Subject: Suggestion: Re: [cab-discuss] Re: Contributor Award Nominations In-Reply-To: <448F24F1.9020509@sun.com> References: <13574100.1150231038900.JavaMail.suncom@oss1> <200606132044.k5DKiTSL021286@vaticaan.holland.sun.com> <448F24F1.9020509@sun.com> Message-ID: <448F2B6C.5050601@Sun.Com> This time, give the award to everyone who was nominated, thereby eliminating the need for judges and the whole conflict of interest thing. Next time, figure out the awards process and groundrules in advance, and then follow them. Inventing and changing the rules after the nominations are in is worse from an ethical perspective than judges getting awards... -John +-- Sara Dornsife wrote: > Is there another suggestion? From Sara.Dornsife at Sun.COM Tue Jun 13 14:25:29 2006 From: Sara.Dornsife at Sun.COM (Sara Dornsife) Date: Tue, 13 Jun 2006 16:25:29 -0500 Subject: [cab-discuss] Re: Contributor Award Nominations In-Reply-To: <200606132052.k5DKqNWT021948@vaticaan.holland.sun.com> References: <13574100.1150231038900.JavaMail.suncom@oss1> <200606132044.k5DKiTSL021286@vaticaan.holland.sun.com> <448F24F1.9020509@sun.com> <200606132052.k5DKqNWT021948@vaticaan.holland.sun.com> Message-ID: <448F2D49.20402@sun.com> Perfect, do that. Sara Casper.Dik at Sun.COM wrote: >> Is there another suggestion? > > Well, yes: cull the "ineligible" and than select the best motivated > ones from the rest. > > Casper From benr at cuddletech.com Tue Jun 13 14:28:00 2006 From: benr at cuddletech.com (Ben Rockwood) Date: Tue, 13 Jun 2006 14:28:00 -0700 Subject: Suggestion: Re: [cab-discuss] Re: Contributor Award Nominations In-Reply-To: <448F2B6C.5050601@Sun.Com> References: <13574100.1150231038900.JavaMail.suncom@oss1> <200606132044.k5DKiTSL021286@vaticaan.holland.sun.com> <448F24F1.9020509@sun.com> <448F2B6C.5050601@Sun.Com> Message-ID: <448F2DE0.1070607@cuddletech.com> John Plocher wrote: > This time, give the award to everyone who was nominated, > thereby eliminating the need for judges and the whole > conflict of interest thing. > > Next time, figure out the awards process and groundrules in > advance, and then follow them. > > Inventing and changing the rules after the nominations are in > is worse from an ethical perspective than judges getting awards... The rules were simple, "The OpenSolaris CAB will judge which 20 members of the community will win". There was no mention of excluded or non-eligible persons. Even self nomination was not disallowed. The suggestion above, allowing everyone to win, is changing the rules. benr. From Sara.Dornsife at Sun.COM Tue Jun 13 14:28:12 2006 From: Sara.Dornsife at Sun.COM (Sara Dornsife) Date: Tue, 13 Jun 2006 16:28:12 -0500 Subject: [cab-discuss] Re: Contributor Award Nominations In-Reply-To: <448F28A4.2070800@cuddletech.com> References: <19489167.1150230923824.JavaMail.suncom@oss1> <448F28A4.2070800@cuddletech.com> Message-ID: <448F2DEC.20501@sun.com> I'm not on the CAB either, but suggestion 2 seems fair. It brings in those that aren't perhaps as well known, but have none-the-less contributed a lot. Sara Ben Rockwood wrote: > Sara Dornsife wrote: >> Thank you Ben, I appreciate the sentiment :). Do you have a suggestion >> about how we get to the list of 20? Changes to Simon's proposal or a >> new way? > This is a CAB matter and I'm not a CAB member, therefore it is > inappropriate to pose a suggestion. > > ... but since I was asked: It seems pretty cut and dry. It can be > handled in one of two ways: > > 1) Consider nominations similar to votes, more nominations and the more > weight that person has. Thus, if we look only at persons with more than > 1 nomination there are 23 names. From that, 11 have 2 nominations > each. Thus, I would discuss which 3 of those persons should be removed > from the list based on the descriptions on the nomination page: > http://www.opensolaris.org/os/community/marketing/contributoraward/ > > 2) Consider all nominations equal, regardless of the number of > nominations present. Have each CAB member submit their list of names, > based on merit, not personal preference, correlate those lists and then > debate as need be. > > T-shirts aren't important, but recognition is. > benr. > From keith.wesolowski at sun.com Tue Jun 13 14:32:18 2006 From: keith.wesolowski at sun.com (Keith M Wesolowski) Date: Tue, 13 Jun 2006 14:32:18 -0700 Subject: Suggestion: Re: [cab-discuss] Re: Contributor Award Nominations In-Reply-To: <448F2B6C.5050601@Sun.Com> References: <13574100.1150231038900.JavaMail.suncom@oss1> <200606132044.k5DKiTSL021286@vaticaan.holland.sun.com> <448F24F1.9020509@sun.com> <448F2B6C.5050601@Sun.Com> Message-ID: <20060613213218.GB21494@sun.com> On Tue, Jun 13, 2006 at 02:17:32PM -0700, John Plocher wrote: > This time, give the award to everyone who was nominated, > thereby eliminating the need for judges and the whole > conflict of interest thing. Sounds fine to me. Excluding the judges and organisers is normally fine, altough since the names of the judges were not published in advance, that's likely to annoy those who nominated them. Another option is to ask someone who was not nominated to act as sole and final judge. Or you could restart the process with published rules indicating that certain persons will be judging and are therefore ineligible, though it's probably too late if you want this done by tomorrow. One last possibility - ask the board to choose 20 people from the list of nominations, excluding themselves, and recognise the board members separately, perhaps in a different way. -- Keith M Wesolowski "Sir, we're surrounded!" Solaris Kernel Team "Excellent; we can attack in any direction!" From keith.wesolowski at sun.com Tue Jun 13 14:37:19 2006 From: keith.wesolowski at sun.com (Keith M Wesolowski) Date: Tue, 13 Jun 2006 14:37:19 -0700 Subject: Suggestion: Re: [cab-discuss] Re: Contributor Award Nominations In-Reply-To: <448F2DE0.1070607@cuddletech.com> References: <13574100.1150231038900.JavaMail.suncom@oss1> <200606132044.k5DKiTSL021286@vaticaan.holland.sun.com> <448F24F1.9020509@sun.com> <448F2B6C.5050601@Sun.Com> <448F2DE0.1070607@cuddletech.com> Message-ID: <20060613213719.GC21494@sun.com> On Tue, Jun 13, 2006 at 02:28:00PM -0700, Ben Rockwood wrote: > The rules were simple, "The OpenSolaris CAB will judge which 20 members > of the community will win". There was no mention of excluded or > non-eligible persons. Even self nomination was not disallowed. > > The suggestion above, allowing everyone to win, is changing the rules. And for ethical reasons, the OGB is obligated not to vote for any of its own. That this fairly obvious consequence wasn't stated explicitly is unfortunate, but nominators ought to have assumed it regardless. Recognising the OGB members separately allows the members to satisfy their ethical obligations and still receive the acknowledgement the nominations indicate they deserve. -- Keith M Wesolowski "Sir, we're surrounded!" Solaris Kernel Team "Excellent; we can attack in any direction!" From benr at cuddletech.com Tue Jun 13 14:55:18 2006 From: benr at cuddletech.com (Ben Rockwood) Date: Tue, 13 Jun 2006 14:55:18 -0700 Subject: Suggestion: Re: [cab-discuss] Re: Contributor Award Nominations In-Reply-To: <20060613213719.GC21494@sun.com> References: <13574100.1150231038900.JavaMail.suncom@oss1> <200606132044.k5DKiTSL021286@vaticaan.holland.sun.com> <448F24F1.9020509@sun.com> <448F2B6C.5050601@Sun.Com> <448F2DE0.1070607@cuddletech.com> <20060613213719.GC21494@sun.com> Message-ID: <448F3446.6050103@cuddletech.com> Keith M Wesolowski wrote: > On Tue, Jun 13, 2006 at 02:28:00PM -0700, Ben Rockwood wrote: > > >> The rules were simple, "The OpenSolaris CAB will judge which 20 members >> of the community will win". There was no mention of excluded or >> non-eligible persons. Even self nomination was not disallowed. >> >> The suggestion above, allowing everyone to win, is changing the rules. >> > > And for ethical reasons, the OGB is obligated not to vote for any of > its own. That this fairly obvious consequence wasn't stated > explicitly is unfortunate, but nominators ought to have assumed it > regardless. Recognising the OGB members separately allows the members > to satisfy their ethical obligations and still receive the > acknowledgement the nominations indicate they deserve. > To be clear, my primary objects is not over exclusion of the judges (CAB members) but of the persons that initiated the program (Sara/Laura). I earlier noted two methods of selection, if the "weight by nomination" method is used then there is no conflict of interest because Al and Rich both have more than a single vote, so they aren't debating themselves. If, however, the second neutral method (all nominations are equal) then they do in fact have a conflict and must voluntarily remove themselves from the list. If a quick fix is desired, using the weighted method, and then removing myself, Al and Rich bring the count to 20 and solves the "judges" problem by avoiding it. A straw poll among the CAB members may be needed to resolve the question. Since the rule was not stipulated and the decision on outcome was left to them it is the sole discretion of the CAB to proceed as they see fit, whatever way that is. benr. From Glynn.Foster at Sun.COM Tue Jun 13 16:32:14 2006 From: Glynn.Foster at Sun.COM (Glynn Foster) Date: Wed, 14 Jun 2006 11:32:14 +1200 Subject: Suggestion: Re: [cab-discuss] Re: Contributor Award Nominations In-Reply-To: <448F3446.6050103@cuddletech.com> References: <13574100.1150231038900.JavaMail.suncom@oss1> <200606132044.k5DKiTSL021286@vaticaan.holland.sun.com> <448F24F1.9020509@sun.com> <448F2B6C.5050601@Sun.Com> <448F2DE0.1070607@cuddletech.com> <20060613213719.GC21494@sun.com> <448F3446.6050103@cuddletech.com> Message-ID: <448F4AFE.9000901@sun.com> Dudes! Seriously. Look at yourselves. We're squabbling over the silliest of things. It's our fricken birthday celebration - everyone's a winner! Most of these people rock my world in OpenSolaris land, and have made amazing contributions to the project over the last year. Sara, I'd be happy to chip in $100 if you can get a few more t-shirts printed up and send to all those people nominated on the list. Then maybe we can get back to celebrating our achievements over the last year. Rock on OpenSolaris, rock on! ;) Glynn Ben Rockwood wrote: > Keith M Wesolowski wrote: >> On Tue, Jun 13, 2006 at 02:28:00PM -0700, Ben Rockwood wrote: >> >> >>> The rules were simple, "The OpenSolaris CAB will judge which 20 >>> members of the community will win". There was no mention of excluded >>> or non-eligible persons. Even self nomination was not disallowed. >>> The suggestion above, allowing everyone to win, is changing the rules. >>> >> >> And for ethical reasons, the OGB is obligated not to vote for any of >> its own. That this fairly obvious consequence wasn't stated >> explicitly is unfortunate, but nominators ought to have assumed it >> regardless. Recognising the OGB members separately allows the members >> to satisfy their ethical obligations and still receive the >> acknowledgement the nominations indicate they deserve. >> > > To be clear, my primary objects is not over exclusion of the judges (CAB > members) but of the persons that initiated the program (Sara/Laura). > > I earlier noted two methods of selection, if the "weight by nomination" > method is used then there is no conflict of interest because Al and Rich > both have more than a single vote, so they aren't debating themselves. > If, however, the second neutral method (all nominations are equal) then > they do in fact have a conflict and must voluntarily remove themselves > from the list. > > If a quick fix is desired, using the weighted method, and then removing > myself, Al and Rich bring the count to 20 and solves the "judges" > problem by avoiding it. > > A straw poll among the CAB members may be needed to resolve the > question. Since the rule was not stipulated and the decision on outcome > was left to them it is the sole discretion of the CAB to proceed as they > see fit, whatever way that is. > > benr. > _______________________________________________ > cab-discuss mailing list > cab-discuss at opensolaris.org From Sara.Dornsife at Sun.COM Tue Jun 13 17:14:04 2006 From: Sara.Dornsife at Sun.COM (Sara Dornsife) Date: Tue, 13 Jun 2006 19:14:04 -0500 Subject: Suggestion: Re: [cab-discuss] Re: Contributor Award Nominations In-Reply-To: <448F4AFE.9000901@sun.com> References: <13574100.1150231038900.JavaMail.suncom@oss1> <200606132044.k5DKiTSL021286@vaticaan.holland.sun.com> <448F24F1.9020509@sun.com> <448F2B6C.5050601@Sun.Com> <448F2DE0.1070607@cuddletech.com> <20060613213719.GC21494@sun.com> <448F3446.6050103@cuddletech.com> <448F4AFE.9000901@sun.com> Message-ID: <448F54CC.6030202@sun.com> We have enough tshirts and stickers to give them to everyone on the list. We don't have enough of the special gifts though. I'm scraping at 20. If we scrapped one or the other (polo and space pen are on the list right now), we could do it. The polo is black with OpenSolaris on the front on Sun logo on the sleeve. The space pen has OpenSolaris on one side and Contributor 2006 on the other. If it were up to me, I would pick the pens. They are pretty cool. And then send everyone nominated everything. Sara Glynn Foster wrote: > Dudes! > > Seriously. Look at yourselves. We're squabbling over the silliest of > things. It's our fricken birthday celebration - everyone's a winner! > > Most of these people rock my world in OpenSolaris land, and have made > amazing contributions to the project over the last year. Sara, I'd be > happy to chip in $100 if you can get a few more t-shirts printed up and > send to all those people nominated on the list. > > Then maybe we can get back to celebrating our achievements over the last > year. Rock on OpenSolaris, rock on! ;) > > > Glynn > > Ben Rockwood wrote: >> Keith M Wesolowski wrote: >>> On Tue, Jun 13, 2006 at 02:28:00PM -0700, Ben Rockwood wrote: >>> >>> >>>> The rules were simple, "The OpenSolaris CAB will judge which 20 >>>> members of the community will win". There was no mention of >>>> excluded or non-eligible persons. Even self nomination was not >>>> disallowed. >>>> The suggestion above, allowing everyone to win, is changing the rules. >>>> >>> >>> And for ethical reasons, the OGB is obligated not to vote for any of >>> its own. That this fairly obvious consequence wasn't stated >>> explicitly is unfortunate, but nominators ought to have assumed it >>> regardless. Recognising the OGB members separately allows the members >>> to satisfy their ethical obligations and still receive the >>> acknowledgement the nominations indicate they deserve. >>> >> >> To be clear, my primary objects is not over exclusion of the judges >> (CAB members) but of the persons that initiated the program (Sara/Laura). >> >> I earlier noted two methods of selection, if the "weight by >> nomination" method is used then there is no conflict of interest >> because Al and Rich both have more than a single vote, so they aren't >> debating themselves. If, however, the second neutral method (all >> nominations are equal) then they do in fact have a conflict and must >> voluntarily remove themselves from the list. >> >> If a quick fix is desired, using the weighted method, and then >> removing myself, Al and Rich bring the count to 20 and solves the >> "judges" problem by avoiding it. >> >> A straw poll among the CAB members may be needed to resolve the >> question. Since the rule was not stipulated and the decision on >> outcome was left to them it is the sole discretion of the CAB to >> proceed as they see fit, whatever way that is. >> >> benr. >> _______________________________________________ >> cab-discuss mailing list >> cab-discuss at opensolaris.org From rich.teer at rite-group.com Tue Jun 13 17:24:24 2006 From: rich.teer at rite-group.com (Rich Teer) Date: Tue, 13 Jun 2006 17:24:24 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Suggestion: Re: [cab-discuss] Re: Contributor Award Nominations In-Reply-To: <448F54CC.6030202@sun.com> References: <13574100.1150231038900.JavaMail.suncom@oss1> <200606132044.k5DKiTSL021286@vaticaan.holland.sun.com> <448F24F1.9020509@sun.com> <448F2B6C.5050601@Sun.Com> <448F2DE0.1070607@cuddletech.com> <20060613213719.GC21494@sun.com> <448F3446.6050103@cuddletech.com> <448F4AFE.9000901@sun.com> <448F54CC.6030202@sun.com> Message-ID: On Tue, 13 Jun 2006, Sara Dornsife wrote: > The space pen has OpenSolaris on one side and Contributor 2006 on the other. > > If it were up to me, I would pick the pens. They are pretty cool. And then > send everyone nominated everything. I'm sensitive to all concerns raised here*, but also mindful of the fact that the ineligibilities (sp?) weren't spelled out in the rules. What you're proposing (keeping the pen would be my choice too) seems to be one way of keeping everyone happy (especially considering that we must come to a final decision expeditiously given that the winners will be announced tomorrow), and we can chalk it up as a learning experience and be more specific next time (assuming we have an OSCAs next year) about who is and who isn't eligible. * Though I don't necessarily agree with them all. -- 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 Tue Jun 13 18:20:28 2006 From: al at logical-approach.com (Al Hopper) Date: Tue, 13 Jun 2006 20:20:28 -0500 (CDT) Subject: Suggestion: Re: [cab-discuss] Re: Contributor Award Nominations In-Reply-To: <20060613213719.GC21494@sun.com> References: <13574100.1150231038900.JavaMail.suncom@oss1> <200606132044.k5DKiTSL021286@vaticaan.holland.sun.com> <448F24F1.9020509@sun.com> <448F2B6C.5050601@Sun.Com> <448F2DE0.1070607@cuddletech.com> <20060613213719.GC21494@sun.com> Message-ID: On Tue, 13 Jun 2006, Keith M Wesolowski wrote: > On Tue, Jun 13, 2006 at 02:28:00PM -0700, Ben Rockwood wrote: > > > The rules were simple, "The OpenSolaris CAB will judge which 20 members > > of the community will win". There was no mention of excluded or > > non-eligible persons. Even self nomination was not disallowed. > > > > The suggestion above, allowing everyone to win, is changing the rules. > > And for ethical reasons, the OGB is obligated not to vote for any of > its own. That this fairly obvious consequence wasn't stated > explicitly is unfortunate, but nominators ought to have assumed it > regardless. Recognising the OGB members separately allows the members > to satisfy their ethical obligations and still receive the > acknowledgement the nominations indicate they deserve. +1 Eloquently stated - as the diehards on OpenSolaris.org have come to expect of Keith W! :) Lets remove organizers and judges from the list and award the remaining nominees. Problem solved. AFAIK all the nominees have earned an award and have my deepest respect and gratitude for their contributions to OpenSolaris. We've built an incredible resource over the last year - all through the unselfish contributions of everyone who has even taken the time to post to one of the community mailing lists. It still boggles my mind, when I compare what we currently have on OpenSolaris with what we had before the Projects' (capitalization intentional) inception. I could not have imagined having a DTrace question answered by Bryan Cantrill, a Zones question answered by David Comay, a ZFS question answered by Eric Schrock/Jeff Bonwick or an install question answered by Juergen Keil[0] - along with a code fix! And I really do a dis-service to those I did'nt mention here. As far as my name being nominated - that is enough recognition for me and my heartfelt thanks to those kind souls who nominated me. As a CAB/OGB member - there are upsides and downsides - just like almost everything in life; it's always a compromise. At this point I'd like to propose that we close this thread. [0] JK was already offering many fixes and solutions on the solarisx86.yahoogroups.com for a long time - even without the OpenSolaris source code! Regards, 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 webmink at sun.com Tue Jun 13 19:09:35 2006 From: webmink at sun.com (Simon Phipps) Date: Tue, 13 Jun 2006 19:09:35 -0700 Subject: Suggestion: Re: [cab-discuss] Re: Contributor Award Nominations In-Reply-To: References: <13574100.1150231038900.JavaMail.suncom@oss1> <200606132044.k5DKiTSL021286@vaticaan.holland.sun.com> <448F24F1.9020509@sun.com> <448F2B6C.5050601@Sun.Com> <448F2DE0.1070607@cuddletech.com> <20060613213719.GC21494@sun.com> <448F3446.6050103@cuddletech.com> <448F4AFE.9000901@sun.com> <448F54CC.6030202@sun.com> Message-ID: <4D78B0E1-2540-4DD8-95F4-61C5169608BF@sun.com> On Jun 13, 2006, at 17:24, Rich Teer wrote: > On Tue, 13 Jun 2006, Sara Dornsife wrote: > >> The space pen has OpenSolaris on one side and Contributor 2006 on >> the other. >> >> If it were up to me, I would pick the pens. They are pretty cool. >> And then >> send everyone nominated everything. > > I'm sensitive to all concerns raised here*, but also mindful of the > fact that > the ineligibilities (sp?) weren't spelled out in the rules. What > you're > proposing (keeping the pen would be my choice too) seems to be one > way of > keeping everyone happy (especially considering that we must come to > a final > decision expeditiously given that the winners will be announced > tomorrow), > and we can chalk it up as a learning experience and be more > specific next > time (assuming we have an OSCAs next year) about who is and who > isn't eligible. I'd agree with this. > > * Though I don't necessarily agree with them all. I would also agree heartily with this - I am still stunned by the reaction and trying to stay quiet. S. From Karyn.Ritter at Sun.COM Tue Jun 13 19:56:26 2006 From: Karyn.Ritter at Sun.COM (Karyn Ritter) Date: Tue, 13 Jun 2006 19:56:26 -0700 Subject: [cab-discuss] Contributor award winners? Message-ID: <448F7ADA.1080504@sun.com> Apologies for not joining in the previous thread earlier in the day... What have you all (the CAB that is) decided to do about selecting award winners? I guess I really only care about how and when the winners will be posted to the site... Do you have that worked out with the person who is supposed to post it in the marketing community? I don't know if you want to effectively "pre-announce" the winners by sending them to an open list, but it was unclear to me how this was going to be handled otherwise. Thanks! Karyn From Karyn.Ritter at Sun.COM Wed Jun 14 06:52:55 2006 From: Karyn.Ritter at Sun.COM (Karyn Ritter) Date: Wed, 14 Jun 2006 06:52:55 -0700 Subject: [Fwd: [cab-discuss] Contributor award winners?] Message-ID: <449014B7.3040303@sun.com> Sorry for the resend... I know this showed up on the forum, but at least on person said they didn't get it... Do we have winners? When will they be posted? Who will post them? Thanks, Karyn -------- Original Message -------- Subject: [cab-discuss] Contributor award winners? Date: Tue, 13 Jun 2006 19:56:26 -0700 From: Karyn Ritter Reply-To: Karyn.Ritter at Sun.COM To: cab-discuss at opensolaris.org Apologies for not joining in the previous thread earlier in the day... What have you all (the CAB that is) decided to do about selecting award winners? I guess I really only care about how and when the winners will be posted to the site... Do you have that worked out with the person who is supposed to post it in the marketing community? I don't know if you want to effectively "pre-announce" the winners by sending them to an open list, but it was unclear to me how this was going to be handled otherwise. Thanks! Karyn _______________________________________________ cab-discuss mailing list cab-discuss at opensolaris.org From Karyn.Ritter at Sun.COM Wed Jun 14 11:17:35 2006 From: Karyn.Ritter at Sun.COM (Karyn Ritter) Date: Wed, 14 Jun 2006 11:17:35 -0700 Subject: [Fwd: [cab-discuss] Contributor award winners?] In-Reply-To: <449014B7.3040303@sun.com> References: <449014B7.3040303@sun.com> Message-ID: <449052BF.8070504@sun.com> Not to sound like a broken record, but... I haven't seen any email from the CAB today. Hopefully you're all busy picking the winners, but it would be reassuring to know that is the case. Apologies for bugging you all. Thanks, Karyn Karyn Ritter wrote: > Sorry for the resend... I know this showed up on the forum, but at least > on person said they didn't get it... > > Do we have winners? When will they be posted? Who will post them? > > Thanks, > > Karyn > > -------- Original Message -------- > Subject: [cab-discuss] Contributor award winners? > Date: Tue, 13 Jun 2006 19:56:26 -0700 > From: Karyn Ritter > Reply-To: Karyn.Ritter at Sun.COM > To: cab-discuss at opensolaris.org > > Apologies for not joining in the previous thread earlier in the day... > > What have you all (the CAB that is) decided to do about selecting award > winners? I guess I really only care about how and when the winners will > be posted to the site... > > Do you have that worked out with the person who is supposed to post it > in the marketing community? I don't know if you want to effectively > "pre-announce" the winners by sending them to an open list, but it was > unclear to me how this was going to be handled otherwise. > > Thanks! > > Karyn > _______________________________________________ > cab-discuss mailing list > cab-discuss at opensolaris.org > From rich.teer at rite-group.com Wed Jun 14 11:52:05 2006 From: rich.teer at rite-group.com (Rich Teer) Date: Wed, 14 Jun 2006 11:52:05 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [Fwd: [cab-discuss] Contributor award winners?] In-Reply-To: <449052BF.8070504@sun.com> References: <449014B7.3040303@sun.com> <449052BF.8070504@sun.com> Message-ID: On Wed, 14 Jun 2006, Karyn Ritter wrote: Hi Karyn, > Not to sound like a broken record, but... I haven't seen any email from the > CAB today. Hopefully you're all busy picking the winners, but it would be > reassuring to know that is the case. We're on it! There was some lively debate yesterday, but I expect an announcement will be forthcoming soon. > Apologies for bugging you all. No worries. -- Rich Teer, SCNA, SCSA, OpenSolaris CAB member President, Rite Online Inc. Voice: +1 (250) 979-1638 URL: http://www.rite-group.com/rich From mo137222 at jurassic.sfbay.sun.com Wed Jun 14 12:04:26 2006 From: mo137222 at jurassic.sfbay.sun.com (Michelle Olson) Date: Wed, 14 Jun 2006 12:04:26 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [Fwd: [cab-discuss] Contributor award winners?] Message-ID: <200606141904.k5EJ4QPf680462@jurassic.eng.sun.com> Hi, I thought about this last night and realized if we go the 'more than 2 mentions route' we totally eliminate a number of the non-Sun nominees. This is wrong. It only makes sense to give the cool swag to non-Sun people, IMHO, just think about it. As an example, this strategy means that Brenden Gregg and Erast Benson are not winners, but I am. Hello? I'm not OK with this. Forget the rules, just please do the right thing here and give swag and recognition to people who have no access to it otherwise. Because That's What We're All About(TM). Thanks, Michelle >X-Original-To: cab-discuss at opensolaris.org >Delivered-To: cab-discuss at opensolaris.org >Date: Wed, 14 Jun 2006 11:17:35 -0700 >From: Karyn Ritter >Subject: Re: [Fwd: [cab-discuss] Contributor award winners?] >To: CAB Discuss >MIME-version: 1.0 >Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT >X-Accept-Language: en-us, en >User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird 0.5 (X11/20040210) >X-BeenThere: cab-discuss at opensolaris.org >X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.4 >List-Id: This list is used for general CAB discussion >List-Unsubscribe: , >List-Archive: >List-Post: >List-Help: >List-Subscribe: , > >Not to sound like a broken record, but... I haven't seen any email from >the CAB today. Hopefully you're all busy picking the winners, but it >would be reassuring to know that is the case. > >Apologies for bugging you all. > >Thanks, > >Karyn > >Karyn Ritter wrote: >> Sorry for the resend... I know this showed up on the forum, but at least >> on person said they didn't get it... >> >> Do we have winners? When will they be posted? Who will post them? >> >> Thanks, >> >> Karyn >> >> -------- Original Message -------- >> Subject: [cab-discuss] Contributor award winners? >> Date: Tue, 13 Jun 2006 19:56:26 -0700 >> From: Karyn Ritter >> Reply-To: Karyn.Ritter at Sun.COM >> To: cab-discuss at opensolaris.org >> >> Apologies for not joining in the previous thread earlier in the day... >> >> What have you all (the CAB that is) decided to do about selecting award >> winners? I guess I really only care about how and when the winners will >> be posted to the site... >> >> Do you have that worked out with the person who is supposed to post it >> in the marketing community? I don't know if you want to effectively >> "pre-announce" the winners by sending them to an open list, but it was >> unclear to me how this was going to be handled otherwise. >> >> Thanks! >> >> Karyn >> _______________________________________________ >> cab-discuss mailing list >> cab-discuss at opensolaris.org >> >_______________________________________________ >cab-discuss mailing list >cab-discuss at opensolaris.org From Sara.Dornsife at Sun.COM Wed Jun 14 16:39:46 2006 From: Sara.Dornsife at Sun.COM (Sara Dornsife) Date: Wed, 14 Jun 2006 18:39:46 -0500 Subject: [cab-discuss] Do we have our winners? Message-ID: <44909E42.90906@sun.com> It's time. Sara From rich.teer at rite-group.com Wed Jun 14 16:53:56 2006 From: rich.teer at rite-group.com (Rich Teer) Date: Wed, 14 Jun 2006 16:53:56 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [cab-discuss] Comments on the Constitution Message-ID: Hi all, I've just waded through the Constituion Draft 01. It looks pretty good to me, but I have some comments. Article III: I'm not sure why there's a distiction between an Emeritus Voting Member and a Basic Member. What's the difference? Article III et al: What's with the "number (figure)" nomenclature (e.g., "duration of two (2) years")? I propose dropping the parenthetical number. Article V: I don't know what a Pariliamentary Authority is (in this context). Article VI: What does "ex officio" mean? Articles IX and XV: My reading of Section 1.1 of Article IX suggests that a Referendum can occur only at the annual OGB elections. Assuming this is the case, Article XV seems a bit daft: the board can propose to dissolve itself only at annual elections. Isn't the board always dissolved and new one elected, even if the members are the same? What am I missing here? -- Rich Teer, SCNA, SCSA, OpenSolaris CAB member President, Rite Online Inc. Voice: +1 (250) 979-1638 URL: http://www.rite-group.com/rich From webmink at sun.com Wed Jun 14 17:00:10 2006 From: webmink at sun.com (Simon Phipps) Date: Thu, 15 Jun 2006 01:00:10 +0100 Subject: [cab-discuss] Do we have our winners? In-Reply-To: <44909E42.90906@sun.com> References: <44909E42.90906@sun.com> Message-ID: <494BDADA-57A1-4FA5-8D39-9DDF48F0CFFC@sun.com> The CAB discussed the nominations at length via private e-mail. To reach a decision, we clearly had to create our own, additional rules for the Awards. We have decided the following: * It would not be appropriate for anyone involved in the awards to receive an award. The Marketing team agree with this. * Rather than arbitrarily limiting the list to 20, it would be better to recognise everyone who was nominated. The list of Award winners is thus: Matt Ahrens Erast Benson Chandan BN Jeff Bonwick Jon Bowman Bryan Cantrill Derek Cicero Dennis Clark Alan Coopersmith Bonnie Corwin James Dickens Alan DuBoff Danek Duvall Sam Faulkner Tim Foster Moinak Ghosh Teresa Giacomini Brendan Gregg Jim Grisanzio Joey Guo Stephen Hahn Rainer Heilke Glenn Herteg Frank Hofmann Sarah Jelinek Jurgen Keil Mike Kupfer Stephen Lau Adam Leventhal Rich Lowe Robert Milkowski Dave Miner Masayuki Murayama Michelle Olsen Rainer Orth Cyril Plisko Stephen Potter Sumitha Prashanth Liane Praza Karyn Ritter Ben Rockwood Joerg Schilling Eric Schrock Greg Shaw Lisa Week Keith Weslowski Ginnie Wray Chen Xiangqun Xiang Yong Our congratulations to all the winners; it's been an amazing year and the contributions you have all made have been essential to the growth of the OpenSolaris community. _____ Simon Phipps, Chief Open Source Officer, Sun Microsystems Tel: +1 650 352 6327/USx69758 Web: www.webmink.net, AIM: webmink Current timezone: UTC+1 (UK) On Jun 15, 2006, at 00:39, Sara Dornsife wrote: > It's time. > Sara > _______________________________________________ > cab-discuss mailing list > cab-discuss at opensolaris.org From benr at cuddletech.com Wed Jun 14 17:27:34 2006 From: benr at cuddletech.com (Ben Rockwood) Date: Wed, 14 Jun 2006 17:27:34 -0700 Subject: [cab-discuss] Comments on the Constitution In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4490A976.3060205@cuddletech.com> Rich Teer wrote: > Hi all, > > I've just waded through the Constituion Draft 01. It looks pretty good > to me, but I have some comments. > > Article III: I'm not sure why there's a distiction between an Emeritus > Voting Member and a Basic Member. What's the difference? > Emeritus have a prior voting status. Basic members have nothing. Emeritus might as well be "Alumni", just a title of respect for deeds done past. > Article III et al: What's with the "number (figure)" nomenclature (e.g., > "duration of two (2) years")? I propose dropping the parenthetical number. > Legalese. > Article V: I don't know what a Pariliamentary Authority is (in this context). > I didn't either, so I bought the book (several actually). Parliamentary Authority outlines the way in which business is to be conducted. There are two popular forms, "Roberts Rules of Order" and "The Standard Code of Parliamentary Procedure". These two differ slightly which is why its explicitly noted. Basically, this is the "Mr. Chairperson, I motion..." "I second..." stuff. > Article VI: What does "ex officio" mean? > I found this listed in "The Standard Code of Parliamentary Procedure", its a good read. Basically, it means that members of the OGB would be present on a committee and despite having higher authority, they would be acting just like anyone else on the committee. Its a change of hats, if you will. Therefore, the two commitees noted in the current draft will consist of all members of the OGB as well as 4 additional persons, making for an 11 person committee. > Articles IX and XV: My reading of Section 1.1 of Article IX suggests that > a Referendum can occur only at the annual OGB elections. Assuming this is > the case, Article XV seems a bit daft: the board can propose to dissolve > itself only at annual elections. Isn't the board always dissolved and new > one elected, even if the members are the same? What am I missing here? > I agree with you on this provision. It makes no sense. If the board puts something forward for a vote it won't be acted upon until the end of term. That seems silly. The idea seems to be to limit organization wide voting so that its under control, which I think is a good idea. A better way of going about this would be to limit ballots to the membership to once every 3 or 6 months. benr. From benr at cuddletech.com Thu Jun 15 03:03:46 2006 From: benr at cuddletech.com (Ben Rockwood) Date: Thu, 15 Jun 2006 03:03:46 -0700 Subject: [cab-discuss] Partial Review of Current Constitution, Part 2 Message-ID: <44913082.5020306@cuddletech.com> The following is a continuation of my partial draft review dated 6/13/06. Article V. The handling of vacancies (someone resigns the OGB) should be covered here. Furthermore, Article XI clearly details the procedure for expelling a member, but no where do I see the procedure for booting an OGB member. Article VI. I would propose that we restrict OGB members from serving as the chair of more than 1 committee. Strictly speaking, this doesn't need to be stipulated in the Constitution but instead handled as an unwritten policy. I assume that the specified "printed ballots" in VI.1.5 is ment to facilitate any possible requirement for a mailed ballot used in conjunction with the prefered electronic voting. The language could, perhaps, be improve in this paragraph. I'm unsure that the process outlined in paragraphs VI.2.4-5 is really efficient. Reguardless, it may be neccisary. As outlined, the comittee reports to the OGB which then empowers the committee to carry out the action, however, given that the committee is largely composed of the 7 OGB members acting ex officio it seems inefficient. But, as stated, I'm not sure there is really a way around this, clumsy as it may be. I dislike the terms "promotion" and "demotion" used several times in VI.2. These terms can seem misleading. For instance, if a community is "dead" for 6 months the comimttee may move to close it, and following approval of the OGB, "demote" it. But demote a community to what? This suggests that there are multiple classificiations of communities, some authoratative and some not. "creation' and "destruction" might be more clear, although more terse. VI.2.6 is incomplete. VI.2.7 is a formatting error and should be VI.3. I've fixed this on the Wiki. Article VII. I believe that these terms of office should be roled into Article V. Article VIII. Given that, similar to VII, all these provisions are specific to the OGB, this article should be rolled into Article V. VIII.4 is contradictory. It is said "It must be possible [to vote via the net]" but then immediately thereafter allows for postal ballots at the discretion of the OGB. Article IX. Similar to Rich, I think restricting referendum to an annual ballot largely defeats the purpose and restricts the OGB from carrying out its duties in a timely manner. I do, however, think that limiting referendums is a good idea, but to do that in a sensable way, such as only 1 per 3 or 6 months. In such a case that this is changed, we may also want to add provisions that referendums voting periods must be open for some ammount of time to ensure maximum possible participation on the part of the voting members, such as a 2 week voting period. Limiting the maximum number of referenda in IX.1.2 is unneeded in the Constitution. At most, a reasonable check would be for all proposed referenda to be approved by the majority of the OGB prior to being placed on the ballot. Article X. I would role this into Article V.4 "Meetings of the Board" Article XI. This article is larger than the article reguarding Elections, which scares me. This article should be handled in one of two ways: 1) rolled into the lifecycle of a member in Article IV, or 2) removed from the constitution and put under the authority of one of the two committees created in Article VI. Article XII. No objections. Article XIII. The naming of the article, "Policies", is ambiguous. A better name might be "Establishing Policy" or something of that nature. IV.2 speaks of amending a policy but should also be used to revoke a policy. Furthmore, there should be provisions here reguarding public availability of all policies. Article XIV. Reguarding the referendum required in XIV.2, see comments reguarding Article IX. Article XV. This is part of the lifecycle of the Board of Directors outlined in Article V, and thus I think should be rolled into Article V. I feel that the current constitution needs to be streamlined in general. I believe that, as we've discussed on this list in the past, each article should address the lifecycle of the subject of that article. benr. From sch at eng.sun.com Fri Jun 16 11:18:24 2006 From: sch at eng.sun.com (Stephen Hahn) Date: Fri, 16 Jun 2006 11:18:24 -0700 Subject: [cab-discuss] Comments on the Constitution In-Reply-To: <4490A976.3060205@cuddletech.com> References: <4490A976.3060205@cuddletech.com> Message-ID: <20060616181824.GA101871@eng.sun.com> * Ben Rockwood [2006-06-14 17:29]: > Rich Teer wrote: > >Articles IX and XV: My reading of Section 1.1 of Article IX suggests that > >a Referendum can occur only at the annual OGB elections. Assuming this is > >the case, Article XV seems a bit daft: the board can propose to dissolve > >itself only at annual elections. Isn't the board always dissolved and new > >one elected, even if the members are the same? What am I missing here? > > > I agree with you on this provision. It makes no sense. If the board > puts something forward for a vote it won't be acted upon until the end > of term. That seems silly. The idea seems to be to limit organization > wide voting so that its under control, which I think is a good idea. A > better way of going about this would be to limit ballots to the > membership to once every 3 or 6 months. The dissolution in Article XV is the dissolution of the entire OpenSolaris Organization. It would essentially be the Organization and the Governing Board saying we no longer want to operate under this Constitution (and probably the Charter as well). I think the Number of Referenda is a good topic for today's call; I was merely trying to limit the number of Organization-wide appeals. - 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 Fri Jun 16 11:31:12 2006 From: sch at eng.sun.com (Stephen Hahn) Date: Fri, 16 Jun 2006 11:31:12 -0700 Subject: [cab-discuss] Partial Review of Current Constitution In-Reply-To: <448E8FEA.4050004@cuddletech.com> References: <448E8FEA.4050004@cuddletech.com> Message-ID: <20060616183112.GB101871@eng.sun.com> * Ben Rockwood [2006-06-13 03:14]: > Article IV. > > Section 1 seems useless and vague. Approval and creation of a community > should be outlined clearly for all to see, not left up to a future > process within the constraints of section 1. Even without a detailed > implementation outline, the base guidelines should be explicit. > Futhermore, section 1 should also address the means by which a new > community is proposed. I disagree; the Constitution should not encode processes which we know will need fine-tuning. I think additional constraints are fine, but I know that we'll need to adjust our processes over time. > IV.3.1.1 states that "grants of Voting Status", which would mean that if > I'm a voting member of the community under investigation I loose my > individual right to vote. This seems unfair to the individual and > should not effect them. If, for some reason, an individuals membership > class should change, that could be handled as a seperate matter not > stipulated here but as a power of the OGB. This is a good topic for discussion. The current text is trying to penalize community failure. If you have additional grants, then your Organization status is unchanged, so this choice didn't seem unreasonable. > Article V. > > Reguarding the number of members on the OGB (V.1.1), I'll state that I > personally prefer a 5 member board, however I also see the benefit of > having 2 extra persons for redundancy purposes. 7 comes from hopes of always meeting quorum, rather than redundancy. > Thoughts in general: > > > In general, the constitution needs to be more lifecycle oriented and > shoud, in particular, answer the following: > > 1) How do I start a new community? > 2) What do I have to do when I have a community? > 3) What happens when the community has fulfilled its purpose or is > otherwise no longer pertinant? These are all specific policies that a future Governing Board may wish to change. As such, they shouldn't be in this document, which has a more severe change process than the policies. > 4) How do I become a member? > 5) What rights do I have as a member? > 6) Under what circumstances can my membership be revoked? > > 7) As a (role) what rights do I have? > 8) As a (role) how can I be removed from that role? > > etc.. Some of these are answered, some are not. I don't think it's my position to enumerate rights, but I'm happy to think about specific cases. > With reguards to communities, I still feel that there needs to be a > single responsable person per community. Call that person a "lead" or > "chair" or whatever you like, but leaving Core Contributors within a > community to work it out amongst themselves doesn't seem to be in the > spirit of goverance. > How that person is chosen, elect, or whatever, is the concern only of > the community itself, however I still think that each community has, at > minimum, two obligations: 1) Publish and keep current a list of your > communities members and their status, and 2) Appoint 1 person from the > core contributors to serve as a Lead, who is responsable for interfacing > with the OGB, etc. > > I'm unclear on the requirement of the 2 standing commitees. Both of > these (as outlined in Article VI) can be preformed by the CAB. > Creating a committee consisting of the full OGB in addition to 4 > contributors seems overkill. Such a committee may be needed in the > future, but I don't see why it should be mandated in the constitution at > this point. The intent of the committees is to respect what I've heard repeatedly voiced by the current OGB members: that they don't want to be involved in everyday operations. The committees, which OGB members can always participate in, due to their ex officio membership, are a way to spread out administrative load. The specific minimum number of non-OGB members can be reduced. I saw four as a way to guarantee diversity of opinion. If all the OGB members are developers, or they are all based in the US, or they are all working for one or two companies, then it would be pleasant to have, says, the elections commitee have representatives who differ in one or more of these aspects. > Also, I'm curious as to whether the constitution should say something > reguarding "undefined bodies", such as projects. It may not say > anything specific, but there should be something reguarding how entities > outside the definition of a community are still handled under the > umbrella of the OGB. Well, one of the issues we've seen raised is that efforts that want a looser association with OpenSolaris *really* want a looser association. It might be difficult to write neutral language to cover the cases you're concerned about without impinging on those outside groups. (To which one might say, "who cares?", I suppose.) One option is to make the notion of project endorsement a more heavyweight operation, with the assignment or identification of a core contributor for the endsorsed project. I believe Roy was indicating that we need to think about this specific topic, although I wasn't certain that it needed to be settled in the Constitution. (Anything I don't comment on, by the way, I am amenable to changing or improving.) - 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 Fri Jun 16 11:42:06 2006 From: sch at eng.sun.com (Stephen Hahn) Date: Fri, 16 Jun 2006 11:42:06 -0700 Subject: [cab-discuss] Partial Review of Current Constitution, Part 2 In-Reply-To: <44913082.5020306@cuddletech.com> References: <44913082.5020306@cuddletech.com> Message-ID: <20060616184206.GC101871@eng.sun.com> * Ben Rockwood [2006-06-15 03:03]: > > The following is a continuation of my partial draft review dated 6/13/06. > > > Article V. > > The handling of vacancies (someone resigns the OGB) should be covered here. Agree. > Furthermore, Article XI clearly details the procedure for expelling a > member, but no where do I see the procedure for booting an OGB member. So I hesitated to write text on this specific issue, because I don't like recalls or unanimous expulsions, but I guess we should make an attempt. Let's talk about this issue today. > Article VI. > > I would propose that we restrict OGB members from serving as the chair > of more than 1 committee. Strictly speaking, this doesn't need to be > stipulated in the Constitution but instead handled as an unwritten policy. Please expand on the concern you have. > I'm unsure that the process outlined in paragraphs VI.2.4-5 is really > efficient. Reguardless, it may be neccisary. As outlined, the comittee > reports to the OGB which then empowers the committee to carry out the > action, however, given that the committee is largely composed of the 7 > OGB members acting ex officio it seems inefficient. But, as stated, I'm > not sure there is really a way around this, clumsy as it may be. That is the outcome of a precise delegation of authority. > I dislike the terms "promotion" and "demotion" used several times in > VI.2. These terms can seem misleading. For instance, if a community is > "dead" for 6 months the comimttee may move to close it, and following > approval of the OGB, "demote" it. But demote a community to what? This > suggests that there are multiple classificiations of communities, some > authoratative and some not. "creation' and "destruction" might be more > clear, although more terse. The "promotion" and "demotion" language is old, and can be improved. I think that we could use creation and destruction, or approval and dismissal/dissolution. > Article VII. > > I believe that these terms of office should be rolled into Article V. So, and since you mention it below, the reason to keep Articles separate is to prevent large Articles (which become tangled up pretty quickly) from emerging. I would like to make attempts to first make the Articles adjacent, before combining them. > Article VIII. > > Given that, similar to VII, all these provisions are specific to the > OGB, this article should be rolled into Article V. > > VIII.4 is contradictory. It is said "It must be possible [to vote via > the net]" but then immediately thereafter allows for postal ballots at > the discretion of the OGB. There's no contradiction. An electronic ballot must be offered at all elections; a postal (physical) ballot may be offered at the discretion of the OGB (or the elections committee, if so authorized). > Article IX. > > Similar to Rich, I think restricting referendum to an annual ballot > largely defeats the purpose and restricts the OGB from carrying out its > duties in a timely manner. I do, however, think that limiting > referendums is a good idea, but to do that in a sensable way, such as > only 1 per 3 or 6 months. In such a case that this is changed, we may > also want to add provisions that referendums voting periods must be open > for some ammount of time to ensure maximum possible participation on the > part of the voting members, such as a 2 week voting period. Sure. > Limiting the maximum number of referenda in IX.1.2 is unneeded in the > Constitution. At most, a reasonable check would be for all proposed > referenda to be approved by the majority of the OGB prior to being > placed on the ballot. Sure. > Article X. > > I would role this into Article V.4 "Meetings of the Board" > > Article XI. > > This article is larger than the article reguarding Elections, which > scares me. This article should be handled in one of two ways: 1) rolled > into the lifecycle of a member in Article IV, or 2) removed from the > constitution and put under the authority of one of the two committees > created in Article VI. It's a special situation, so I would argue that the Constitution should constrain the process a committee or the OGB might follow. In particular, it is trying to make discipline and expulsion open (while respecting privacy for the innocent), prompt, and somewhat difficult (in that strong consensus is required). > Article XIII. > > The naming of the article, "Policies", is ambiguous. A better name > might be "Establishing Policy" or something of that nature. > > IV.2 speaks of amending a policy but should also be used to revoke a > policy. Furthmore, there should be provisions here reguarding public > availability of all policies. Agree. > Article XIV. > > Reguarding the referendum required in XIV.2, see comments reguarding > Article IX. > > Article XV. > > This is part of the lifecycle of the Board of Directors outlined in > Article V, and thus I think should be rolled into Article V. It's not, actually. It's about the Organization. > I feel that the current constitution needs to be streamlined in > general. I believe that, as we've discussed on this list in the past, > each article should address the lifecycle of the subject of that article. I'm not particularly attached to any outline, but I do believe that handling a wide variety of outcome, as opposed to the gross states and exception handling, will lead to a more difficult document. - 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 Fri Jun 16 11:54:46 2006 From: sch at eng.sun.com (Stephen Hahn) Date: Fri, 16 Jun 2006 11:54:46 -0700 Subject: [cab-discuss] Issues to resolve. Message-ID: <20060616185446.GD101871@eng.sun.com> My office is being moved, so I've been on a laptop too much (and now my fingers ache as a result). Here's what I've extracted from the threads as open or somewhat-open topics. As of our meeting, I've heard from leads of five communities, that have identified 51 tentative contributors or core contributors. I'll do another poke today. - Stephen ---- Big topics: 1. Missing membership rights and privileges. 2. Referenda. Limits on number. Intervals. Duration of votes. (Perhaps duration of votes in general.) 3. Expelling a Board member. 4. Stipulated leads from communities. 5. Authority over unmentioned bodies (like projects). 6. Size of OGB; size of committees. Little topics: 1. Clarification on dissolution. 2. Big versus little articles. 3. Style goals. -- Stephen Hahn, PhD Solaris Kernel Development, Sun Microsystems stephen.hahn at sun.com http://blogs.sun.com/sch/ From jim.grisanzio at sun.com Sat Jun 17 09:02:54 2006 From: jim.grisanzio at sun.com (Jim Grisanzio) Date: Sat, 17 Jun 2006 09:02:54 PDT Subject: [cab-discuss] CAB/OGB Meeting Notes: 6/16/06 Message-ID: <25998501.1150560204477.JavaMail.suncom@oss1> CAB/OGB Conference Call Meeting 6/16/06 | Noon Pacific OGB members present: Al Hopper, Casper Dik, Rich Teer Governance Working Group members present: Stephen Hahn, Ben Rockwood Issues Discussed: * It was pointed out that the OGB doesn't necessarily have the power to to enact changes. However, ARCs and c-teams are the current bodies that the OGB would re-authorize for these purposes. * Disputes: OGB should have some power but should not dictate technical direction. OGB will have ability to delegate and form committees for various issues. * Membership of contributors and participants. * Should the Constitution be issued with the intention of creating amendments to update the document since the project is still growing and potentially will change significantly in the next few years? Or should amendments be not be used for this purpose? * Disputes heard by OGB. * Expulsion of an OGB member: Need a model for this. Death, resignation, poor attendance, etc. Recall functionality not needed due to the number of people on the OGB and the one year term. No confidence vote discussed but not seen as effective. * OGB members: It was decided that the OGB will have 7 board members. * Referenda: Who can call for a referendum? The OGB could place questions to the membership in cases where the board is looking for popular opinion or also to modify the Constitution itself. How many per per quarter? Per year? It was decided that 4 per year was a reasonable starting point. It was also pointed out that if referenda were needed it would mean that the OGB wouldn't be doing its job properly. * Dissolution: Needed for life cycle reasons, the potentiality of a new body taking over (such as a foundation) in the future, etc. * Stipulated leads: Should there be a limit? The OGB should have the ability to ask project leads or their representatives to address an issue. * Committee model: OGB + 2 * In the Constitution, OpenSolaris will be referred to as the OpenSolaris Initiative, not the OpenSolaris Organization. * Style: What are the style goals for the Constitution document? Discuss further on list. * Elections policy: board candidates need to declare their affiliations before elections take place. * Work will continue on list and on the wiki. The board feels that most of the issues for a final OpenSolaris Constitution have been addressed at this point. Current Draft of Constitution: http://www.genunix.org/wiki/index.php/OpenSolaris_Governance_Draft_01 OGB discussion list: http://opensolaris.org/jive/forum.jspa?forumID=17 ### This message posted from opensolaris.org From al at logical-approach.com Sat Jun 17 10:07:47 2006 From: al at logical-approach.com (Al Hopper) Date: Sat, 17 Jun 2006 12:07:47 -0500 (CDT) Subject: [cab-discuss] CAB/OGB Meeting Notes: 6/16/06 In-Reply-To: <25998501.1150560204477.JavaMail.suncom@oss1> References: <25998501.1150560204477.JavaMail.suncom@oss1> Message-ID: On Sat, 17 Jun 2006, Jim Grisanzio wrote: > CAB/OGB Conference Call Meeting > 6/16/06 | Noon Pacific > OGB members present: Al Hopper, Casper Dik, Rich Teer > Governance Working Group members present: Stephen Hahn, Ben Rockwood > > Issues Discussed: > > * It was pointed out that the OGB doesn't necessarily have the power to to enact changes. However, ARCs and c-teams are the current bodies that the OGB would re-authorize for these purposes. > > * Disputes: OGB should have some power but should not dictate technical direction. OGB will have ability to delegate and form committees for various issues. > > * Membership of contributors and participants. > > * Should the Constitution be issued with the intention of creating amendments to update the document since the project is still growing and potentially will change significantly in the next few years? Or should amendments be not be used for this purpose? > > * Disputes heard by OGB. > > * Expulsion of an OGB member: Need a model for this. Death, resignation, poor attendance, etc. Recall functionality not needed due to the number of people on the OGB and the one year term. No confidence vote discussed but not seen as effective. > > * OGB members: It was decided that the OGB will have 7 board members. > > * Referenda: Who can call for a referendum? The OGB could place questions to the membership in cases where the board is looking for popular opinion or also to modify the Constitution itself. How many per per quarter? Per year? It was decided that 4 per year was a reasonable starting point. It was also pointed out that if referenda were needed it would mean that the OGB wouldn't be doing its job properly. > > * Dissolution: Needed for life cycle reasons, the potentiality of a new body taking over (such as a foundation) in the future, etc. > > * Stipulated leads: Should there be a limit? The OGB should have the ability to ask project leads or their representatives to address an issue. > > * Committee model: OGB + 2 > > * In the Constitution, OpenSolaris will be referred to as the OpenSolaris Initiative, not the OpenSolaris Organization. > > * Style: What are the style goals for the Constitution document? Discuss further on list. > > * Elections policy: board candidates need to declare their affiliations before elections take place. > > * Work will continue on list and on the wiki. The board feels that most of the issues for a final OpenSolaris Constitution have been addressed at this point. > > Current Draft of Constitution: > http://www.genunix.org/wiki/index.php/OpenSolaris_Governance_Draft_01 > OGB discussion list: > http://opensolaris.org/jive/forum.jspa?forumID=17 Excellent summary Jim. Thanks for taking the time out of your weekend. Regards, 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 Glynn.Foster at Sun.COM Tue Jun 20 04:33:42 2006 From: Glynn.Foster at Sun.COM (Glynn Foster) Date: Tue, 20 Jun 2006 11:33:42 +0000 Subject: [cab-discuss] Issues to resolve. In-Reply-To: <20060616185446.GD101871@eng.sun.com> References: <20060616185446.GD101871@eng.sun.com> Message-ID: <4497DD16.5060009@sun.com> Hey, Stephen Hahn wrote: > > My office is being moved, so I've been on a laptop too much (and now > my fingers ache as a result). Here's what I've extracted from the > threads as open or somewhat-open topics. > > As of our meeting, I've heard from leads of five communities, that > have identified 51 tentative contributors or core contributors. > I'll do another poke today. FWIW, I had some reservations with what I was being asked to supply, and asked for some guidelines [1]. I'm still struggling trying to come up with a list because I don't want to feel like *every* Sun person who has current commit rights gets to be a core contributor by default - especially so if they haven't really contributed much on the mailing lists. Glynn [1] Which I've now received, but have been traveling for the annual GNOME conference From Glynn.Foster at Sun.COM Tue Jun 20 04:43:43 2006 From: Glynn.Foster at Sun.COM (Glynn Foster) Date: Tue, 20 Jun 2006 11:43:43 +0000 Subject: [cab-discuss] CAB/OGB Meeting Notes: 6/16/06 In-Reply-To: <25998501.1150560204477.JavaMail.suncom@oss1> References: <25998501.1150560204477.JavaMail.suncom@oss1> Message-ID: <4497DF6F.6070000@sun.com> Hi, Jim Grisanzio wrote: > CAB/OGB Conference Call Meeting 6/16/06 | Noon Pacific OGB members > present: Al Hopper, Casper Dik, Rich Teer Governance Working Group > members present: Stephen Hahn, Ben Rockwood > > Issues Discussed: > > * It was pointed out that the OGB doesn't necessarily have the power > to to enact changes. However, ARCs and c-teams are the current bodies > that the OGB would re-authorize for these purposes. This would be from a technical perspective - does this differ from a social perspective? In my opinion, decisions should be made in the community that are consensus driven, so as such OGB doesn't have the power to enact changes either. However, it should be a body to fall back for any disputes etc etc.. > * Disputes: OGB should have some power but should not dictate > technical direction. OGB will have ability to delegate and form > committees for various issues. Agree, sounds sensible. > * Should the Constitution be issued with the intention of creating > amendments to update the document since the project is still growing > and potentially will change significantly in the next few years? Or > should amendments be not be used for this purpose? I would personally be fine with amendments being made to update the document. I would suggest that proposals should be mailed to a general alias with a timeout. If someone disagrees, then discussion should take place. Obviously, any changes would be consensus driven. > * Disputes heard by OGB. > > * Expulsion of an OGB member: Need a model for this. Death, > resignation, poor attendance, etc. Recall functionality not needed > due to the number of people on the OGB and the one year term. No > confidence vote discussed but not seen as effective. I agree we don't need to worry about this until it actually becomes a problem. I would *hope* that any OGB member would have the conscience to know that they are either doing a bad job, or not have enough time to give. If they don't, I sure as hell won't be voting for them ;) > * Referenda: Who can call for a referendum? The OGB could place > questions to the membership in cases where the board is looking for > popular opinion or also to modify the Constitution itself. How many > per per quarter? Per year? It was decided that 4 per year was a > reasonable starting point. It was also pointed out that if referenda > were needed it would mean that the OGB wouldn't be doing its job > properly. Anyone on the membership I would expect. I would hope that this wouldn't be a normal thing. I think we should probably have some sort of wording as to how many members are needed for support of a referendum. Perhaps something like 10 or 15% of the membership? > * Stipulated leads: Should there be a limit? The OGB should have the > ability to ask project leads or their representatives to address an > issue. Is this really an OGB issue? That's a technical discussion perhaps, and I don't feel it's part of the constitution. > * Committee model: OGB + 2 Can someone explain what this is? > * In the Constitution, OpenSolaris will be referred to as the > OpenSolaris Initiative, not the OpenSolaris Organization. Blah, sucks. Can't we call it 'Project' or 'Community'? ;) > * Elections policy: board candidates need to declare their > affiliations before elections take place. Firmly agree. I would also like to see each candidate providing some information about themselves and what they feel are the important issues the project faces. Having a set of questions generated by the membership for each candidate to answer would also be pretty cool. That's worked for the GNOME elections well in the past. Glynn From benr at cuddletech.com Tue Jun 20 11:46:06 2006 From: benr at cuddletech.com (Ben Rockwood) Date: Tue, 20 Jun 2006 11:46:06 -0700 Subject: [cab-discuss] Issues to resolve. In-Reply-To: <4497DD16.5060009@sun.com> References: <20060616185446.GD101871@eng.sun.com> <4497DD16.5060009@sun.com> Message-ID: <4498426E.60004@cuddletech.com> Glynn Foster wrote: > Hey, > > Stephen Hahn wrote: >> >> My office is being moved, so I've been on a laptop too much (and now >> my fingers ache as a result). Here's what I've extracted from the >> threads as open or somewhat-open topics. >> >> As of our meeting, I've heard from leads of five communities, that >> have identified 51 tentative contributors or core contributors. >> I'll do another poke today. > > FWIW, I had some reservations with what I was being asked to supply, > and asked for some guidelines [1]. I'm still struggling trying to come > up with a list because I don't want to feel like *every* Sun person > who has current commit rights gets to be a core contributor by default > - especially so if they haven't really contributed much on the mailing > lists. Personally, if you could demonstrate that the Sun employee is a committer and fulfilling the commitments (ie: bug fix, code contribution, support where needed) of a core contributer I see no problem with naming them as such even if they've been quiet on the lists or publicly. But its not a major sticking point really, you could name those persons simply as contributers and promote them to core contributers later. Whats important right now is the initial list at the time of governance bootstrapping. After the governance is complete and we focus more and more on the development processes evolving externally such distinctions will become increasingly important since it will determine your rights and abilities within the development framework. I expect to see some shuffling occurring at that time. benr. From benr at cuddletech.com Tue Jun 20 12:24:52 2006 From: benr at cuddletech.com (Ben Rockwood) Date: Tue, 20 Jun 2006 12:24:52 -0700 Subject: [cab-discuss] CAB/OGB Meeting Notes: 6/16/06 In-Reply-To: <4497DF6F.6070000@sun.com> References: <25998501.1150560204477.JavaMail.suncom@oss1> <4497DF6F.6070000@sun.com> Message-ID: <44984B84.3020709@cuddletech.com> Glynn Foster wrote: > Hi, > > Jim Grisanzio wrote: >> CAB/OGB Conference Call Meeting 6/16/06 | Noon Pacific OGB members >> present: Al Hopper, Casper Dik, Rich Teer Governance Working Group >> members present: Stephen Hahn, Ben Rockwood >> >> Issues Discussed: >> >> * It was pointed out that the OGB doesn't necessarily have the power >> to to enact changes. However, ARCs and c-teams are the current bodies >> that the OGB would re-authorize for these purposes. > > This would be from a technical perspective - does this differ from a > social perspective? In my opinion, decisions should be made in the > community that are consensus driven, so as such OGB doesn't have the > power to enact changes either. However, it should be a body to fall > back for any disputes etc etc.. The issue is with regard to disputes. Consider the following situation: A member makes a contribution thats denied for some reason, either by the cteam or the arc. The member is offended and rather than abide by the decision of the body it submitted to he decides to petition and ultimately the issue ends up with the OGB. The OGB can, as a court of last resort, rule on the decision, however it has no power to enact it. This illustrates the divide of the technical and social sides of the organization. Therefore, it seems reasonable that we should give the OGB some type of hook into the technical side of the organization. To be clear, I do believe in separation of the social and technical sides of the organization and I do not wish for the OGB to have the ability to chart the technical direction of this effort, however if it is to handle social situations that are based on a technical issue it should have some mechanism to enact the resolutions that it approves. This could be done by means of a committee, for instance made up of C-Team leads, arc members, and OGB members so that an issue could be defered to the committee, decided, pushed back up to the OGB for an approval and then pushed back down for follow through. This gives some balance of power and is equitable to all sides. Without such a provision we could potentially have a conflict. What if James Dickens recent discussion about modifying SX:CR got proposed to the OGB and the OGB approved of it.... how would that be handled? Right now it would mean very little. And so we either need to empower the OGB or make sure these types of requests never get to them. > >> * Disputes: OGB should have some power but should not dictate >> technical direction. OGB will have ability to delegate and form >> committees for various issues. > > Agree, sounds sensible. > >> * Should the Constitution be issued with the intention of creating >> amendments to update the document since the project is still growing >> and potentially will change significantly in the next few years? Or >> should amendments be not be used for this purpose? > > I would personally be fine with amendments being made to update the > document. I would suggest that proposals should be mailed to a general > alias with a timeout. If someone disagrees, then discussion should > take place. Obviously, any changes would be consensus driven. Do we reach a decision on whether amendments would be approved by the OGB or by the entire electorate? I personally prefer for the former. Any and all attempts to keep issues from becoming a referendum to the entire voting body (all voting members) should be made. The purposes of the OGB, in the scheme of a representative body, is to move quickly and decisively based on the general consensus of the entire body without the need to inconvenience everyone. >> * Disputes heard by OGB. >> >> * Expulsion of an OGB member: Need a model for this. Death, >> resignation, poor attendance, etc. Recall functionality not needed >> due to the number of people on the OGB and the one year term. No >> confidence vote discussed but not seen as effective. > > I agree we don't need to worry about this until it actually becomes a > problem. I would *hope* that any OGB member would have the conscience > to know that they are either doing a bad job, or not have enough time > to give. If they don't, I sure as hell won't be voting for them ;) > >> * Referenda: Who can call for a referendum? The OGB could place >> questions to the membership in cases where the board is looking for >> popular opinion or also to modify the Constitution itself. How many >> per per quarter? Per year? It was decided that 4 per year was a >> reasonable starting point. It was also pointed out that if referenda >> were needed it would mean that the OGB wouldn't be doing its job >> properly. > > Anyone on the membership I would expect. I would hope that this > wouldn't be a normal thing. I think we should probably have some sort > of wording as to how many members are needed for support of a > referendum. Perhaps something like 10 or 15% of the membership? Referenda should be called for by means of a motion to the chair in a meeting of the board. If seconded the motion is debated for a period no longer than the duration of the meeting/call and then voted upon by the OGB quorum present, given a 2/3rds passage the referendum is consider approved and an axillary motion is called to debate and vote upon the timing of the election. Following this additional motions can be made to include additional referendum items to the ballot. >> * Stipulated leads: Should there be a limit? The OGB should have the >> ability to ask project leads or their representatives to address an >> issue. > > Is this really an OGB issue? That's a technical discussion perhaps, > and I don't feel it's part of the constitution. I still firmly believe that each community must appoint a chairperson. Call them the lead or what you wish, but from the core contributers within the community at least one of them must be accountable. This person acts as the single point of contact for official communitation between the OGB and the community. Case in point, right now we have to get the member lists from each communities. Which of those leads is qualified to make that decision? Which person is to be considered authoritative in that reporting? I'm a "leader" of the Marketing Community, is my response as valid as Sara, Laura, or Jim's? > >> * Committee model: OGB + 2 > > Can someone explain what this is? This is reguarding the makeup of various committees enacted by the OGB. The draft currently states that each standing committee (of which there are 2) should include the 7 members of the OGB ex officio plus an additional 4 members of the organization, making for an 11 person committee. This argument is to drop the number of additional members from 4 to 2. To some degree I think that its unreasonable to include all 7 members of the OGB on the committees. I think choosing 3 persons from the OGB ex officio and 4 persons from the organization would make a smoother committee. The only advantage that I see of including all 7 OGB members is that there is less confusion when a report moves up from the comittee to the OGB for approval. If all 7 OGB members were part of the submitting the report, it means that the OGB approval is really just an official rubber stamp and then they push it back down without need to excessively debate it upon submission. > >> * In the Constitution, OpenSolaris will be referred to as the >> OpenSolaris Initiative, not the OpenSolaris Organization. > > Blah, sucks. Can't we call it 'Project' or 'Community'? ;) No. Both the terms "Project" and "Community" are used elsewhere and cause confusion. The origonal draft said "OpenSolaris Community" but was later changed because of the confusion it would cause. Right now we have to choose between "OpenSolaris Organization" and "OpenSolaris Initiative", unless we can think up something more accurate and better sounding. But, for all intents and purposes, this is just the formal wording of the constitution and we all continue to understand "community" to have a dual meaning in casual speech. >> * Elections policy: board candidates need to declare their >> affiliations before elections take place. > > Firmly agree. I would also like to see each candidate providing some > information about themselves and what they feel are the important > issues the project faces. Having a set of questions generated by the > membership for each candidate to answer would also be pretty cool. > That's worked for the GNOME elections well in the past. Agreed. I don't think we need specific language since "affiliations" can be widely interpreted but simply making the stipulation is sufficient to make the point. benr. From webmink at sun.com Tue Jun 20 13:55:52 2006 From: webmink at sun.com (Simon Phipps) Date: Tue, 20 Jun 2006 21:55:52 +0100 Subject: [cab-discuss] CAB/OGB Meeting Notes: 6/16/06 In-Reply-To: <44984B84.3020709@cuddletech.com> References: <25998501.1150560204477.JavaMail.suncom@oss1> <4497DF6F.6070000@sun.com> <44984B84.3020709@cuddletech.com> Message-ID: <862D16DF-063B-4D43-B439-3AD5A76FCB8F@sun.com> On Jun 20, 2006, at 20:24, Ben Rockwood wrote: > >> >>> * Committee model: OGB + 2 >> >> Can someone explain what this is? > > This is reguarding the makeup of various committees enacted by the > OGB. The draft currently states that each standing committee (of > which there are 2) should include the 7 members of the OGB ex > officio plus an additional 4 members of the organization, making > for an 11 person committee. This argument is to drop the number of > additional members from 4 to 2. > > To some degree I think that its unreasonable to include all 7 > members of the OGB on the committees. I think choosing 3 persons > from the OGB ex officio and 4 persons from the organization would > make a smoother committee. The only advantage that I see of > including all 7 OGB members is that there is less confusion when a > report moves up from the comittee to the OGB for approval. If all > 7 OGB members were part of the submitting the report, it means that > the OGB approval is really just an official rubber stamp and then > they push it back down without need to excessively debate it upon > submission. Here's what has worked for me before - two kinds of Board committees. Style A - for most contexts, the bulk of the work of the Board should be conducted in these committees which should usually be created ad- hoc with fixed life for specific tasks (but there may be a few with longer duration for task categories) * Board members are always entitled to attend Board committee meetings as if they were members * A minimum of one Board member has to be a formal member of the committee for it to be a Board committee * Any reasonable number of members of the organisation can form the committee, at the Board's discretion * The minutes of the meetings are public and form an input to the next Board meeting * The Committee makes recommendations that are ratified by the Board. It is not empowered to make binding decisions The result of this arrangement is that the Board is presented with thought-through proposals which can be quickly understood and voted upon at Board meetings. It allows the Committee to comprise true experts and does not assume the Board to be composed of people with specialist skills. Style B - for 'privileged' content, usually involving personal information, always created ad-hoc for specific issues * The Committee is composed only of Board members but may invite selected experts to advise * At least three Board members are required as formal members but all may attend each meeting * The Committee may only make binding decisions if it is attended by a quorum of the full board, otherwise it makes recommendations that are ratified at the next Board meeting * The minutes of the meetings are board-confidential unless voted otherwise by the Board, but a non-confidential synopsis is public S. From Simon.Phipps at Sun.COM Tue Jun 20 14:03:38 2006 From: Simon.Phipps at Sun.COM (Simon Phipps) Date: Tue, 20 Jun 2006 22:03:38 +0100 Subject: [cab-discuss] Board Removal In-Reply-To: <44984B84.3020709@cuddletech.com> References: <25998501.1150560204477.JavaMail.suncom@oss1> <4497DF6F.6070000@sun.com> <44984B84.3020709@cuddletech.com> Message-ID: <39C0DE93-F5D7-4BA4-AEFE-2CF358CF6997@Sun.COM> On Jun 20, 2006, at 20:24, Ben Rockwood wrote: (actually Glynn Foster's reply) > >>> * Expulsion of an OGB member: Need a model for this. Death, >>> resignation, poor attendance, etc. Recall functionality not needed >>> due to the number of people on the OGB and the one year term. No >>> confidence vote discussed but not seen as effective. >> >> I agree we don't need to worry about this until it actually >> becomes a problem. I would *hope* that any OGB member would have >> the conscience to know that they are either doing a bad job, or >> not have enough time to give. If they don't, I sure as hell won't >> be voting for them ;) On the contrary, this is the sort of issue that must be handled in advance of its occurrence. I have previously proposed that a mechanism to remove an individual member is not needed due tio the short term, but that the OGB should be empowered to force an election if it feels unable to continue to operate for any reason (such as a member who obstructs business, or a context that is intolerable to all). I therefore propose again what I did before: * In the event of the resignation (etc) of a member, the ballot from the last election shall be reviewed and the candidate with the next most votes shall be elected for the balance of the open term. * In the event that there are no more candidates, the Board shall operate as usual with a reduced membership * In the event the Board ceases to be able to be quorate, a new election shall be held for the balance of the term (or possibly for the next term plus the balance of the current term). Current members may stand again, within term limits. * In the event that the Board feels permanently unable to operate for any reason, it may vote to dissolve the Board and force a new election as above. S. From webmink at sun.com Tue Jun 20 14:29:40 2006 From: webmink at sun.com (Simon Phipps) Date: Tue, 20 Jun 2006 22:29:40 +0100 Subject: [cab-discuss] Partial Review of Current Constitution, Part 2 (Restricting chairmanships) In-Reply-To: <20060616184206.GC101871@eng.sun.com> References: <44913082.5020306@cuddletech.com> <20060616184206.GC101871@eng.sun.com> Message-ID: <0347B460-0050-4FBD-BD17-20C1395A0D7A@sun.com> On Jun 16, 2006, at 19:42, Stephen Hahn wrote: >> Article VI. >> >> I would propose that we restrict OGB members from serving as the >> chair >> of more than 1 committee. Strictly speaking, this doesn't need to be >> stipulated in the Constitution but instead handled as an unwritten >> policy. > > Please expand on the concern you have. I too would like to understand why Ben feels this way, but whatever the outcome I suggest it is not the subject for a Constitution and should be left to the Board's self-written Rules of Procedure. Items in the Constitution need to only extend as far as matters which, if abused, allow subversion of the constitution, and I don't currently see why this qualifies. S. From benr at cuddletech.com Tue Jun 20 15:28:37 2006 From: benr at cuddletech.com (Ben Rockwood) Date: Tue, 20 Jun 2006 15:28:37 -0700 Subject: [cab-discuss] Partial Review of Current Constitution, Part 2 (Restricting chairmanships) In-Reply-To: <0347B460-0050-4FBD-BD17-20C1395A0D7A@sun.com> References: <44913082.5020306@cuddletech.com> <20060616184206.GC101871@eng.sun.com> <0347B460-0050-4FBD-BD17-20C1395A0D7A@sun.com> Message-ID: <44987695.4040700@cuddletech.com> Simon Phipps wrote: > > On Jun 16, 2006, at 19:42, Stephen Hahn wrote: > >>> Article VI. >>> >>> I would propose that we restrict OGB members from serving as the chair >>> of more than 1 committee. Strictly speaking, this doesn't need to be >>> stipulated in the Constitution but instead handled as an unwritten >>> policy. >> >> Please expand on the concern you have. > > I too would like to understand why Ben feels this way, but whatever > the outcome I suggest it is not the subject for a Constitution and > should be left to the Board's self-written Rules of Procedure. Items > in the Constitution need to only extend as far as matters which, if > abused, allow subversion of the constitution, and I don't currently > see why this qualifies. The reason is simple, the chair of any board or committee should have that position as their first concern. If a single person is the chair of multiple boards or committees it would simply overload them in my opinion and possible become a conflict of interest. As I stated before, this doesn't need to be in the constitution. I would think as a matter of good judgment when electing a chair that those voting would carefully weigh their existing obligations as part of the decision. The only exception to my "unwritten rule" would apply to communities. This assumes that my proposal to require each community to have a chair (leader, if you prefer) is accepted. In such a case I see no problem with someone being the chair for a community and a committee as they are sufficiently abstracted positions in the majority of cases. In some cases this may even prove helpful, such as the chair of the Architecture community being the chair of a technical committee. benr. From webmink at sun.com Tue Jun 20 16:48:56 2006 From: webmink at sun.com (Simon Phipps) Date: Wed, 21 Jun 2006 00:48:56 +0100 Subject: [cab-discuss] Partial Review of Current Constitution, Part 2 (Restricting chairmanships) In-Reply-To: <44987695.4040700@cuddletech.com> References: <44913082.5020306@cuddletech.com> <20060616184206.GC101871@eng.sun.com> <0347B460-0050-4FBD-BD17-20C1395A0D7A@sun.com> <44987695.4040700@cuddletech.com> Message-ID: On Jun 20, 2006, at 23:28, Ben Rockwood wrote: > Simon Phipps wrote: >> >> On Jun 16, 2006, at 19:42, Stephen Hahn wrote: >> >>>> Article VI. >>>> >>>> I would propose that we restrict OGB members from serving as the >>>> chair >>>> of more than 1 committee. Strictly speaking, this doesn't need >>>> to be >>>> stipulated in the Constitution but instead handled as an >>>> unwritten policy. >>> >>> Please expand on the concern you have. >> >> I too would like to understand why Ben feels this way, but >> whatever the outcome I suggest it is not the subject for a >> Constitution and should be left to the Board's self-written Rules >> of Procedure. Items in the Constitution need to only extend as far >> as matters which, if abused, allow subversion of the constitution, >> and I don't currently see why this qualifies. > > The reason is simple, the chair of any board or committee should > have that position as their first concern. If a single person is > the chair of multiple boards or committees it would simply overload > them in my opinion and possible become a conflict of interest. > As I stated before, this doesn't need to be in the constitution. I > would think as a matter of good judgment when electing a chair that > those voting would carefully weigh their existing obligations as > part of the decision. > The only exception to my "unwritten rule" would apply to > communities. This assumes that my proposal to require each > community to have a chair (leader, if you prefer) is accepted. In > such a case I see no problem with someone being the chair for a > community and a committee as they are sufficiently abstracted > positions in the majority of cases. In some cases this may even > prove helpful, such as the chair of the Architecture community > being the chair of a technical committee. Broadly agree although there will always be exceptions. I actually think we need written rules here, just not in the Constitution, hence my allusion to the Board's Rules of Procedure, which it can evolve over time. S. From benr at cuddletech.com Tue Jun 20 16:55:36 2006 From: benr at cuddletech.com (Ben Rockwood) Date: Tue, 20 Jun 2006 16:55:36 -0700 Subject: [cab-discuss] Partial Review of Current Constitution, Part 2 (Restricting chairmanships) In-Reply-To: References: <44913082.5020306@cuddletech.com> <20060616184206.GC101871@eng.sun.com> <0347B460-0050-4FBD-BD17-20C1395A0D7A@sun.com> <44987695.4040700@cuddletech.com> Message-ID: <44988AF8.6010004@cuddletech.com> Simon Phipps wrote: > > On Jun 20, 2006, at 23:28, Ben Rockwood wrote: > >> Simon Phipps wrote: >>> >>> On Jun 16, 2006, at 19:42, Stephen Hahn wrote: >>> >>>>> Article VI. >>>>> >>>>> I would propose that we restrict OGB members from serving as the >>>>> chair >>>>> of more than 1 committee. Strictly speaking, this doesn't need to be >>>>> stipulated in the Constitution but instead handled as an unwritten >>>>> policy. >>>> >>>> Please expand on the concern you have. >>> >>> I too would like to understand why Ben feels this way, but whatever >>> the outcome I suggest it is not the subject for a Constitution and >>> should be left to the Board's self-written Rules of Procedure. Items >>> in the Constitution need to only extend as far as matters which, if >>> abused, allow subversion of the constitution, and I don't currently >>> see why this qualifies. >> >> The reason is simple, the chair of any board or committee should have >> that position as their first concern. If a single person is the >> chair of multiple boards or committees it would simply overload them >> in my opinion and possible become a conflict of interest. >> As I stated before, this doesn't need to be in the constitution. I >> would think as a matter of good judgment when electing a chair that >> those voting would carefully weigh their existing obligations as part >> of the decision. >> The only exception to my "unwritten rule" would apply to >> communities. This assumes that my proposal to require each community >> to have a chair (leader, if you prefer) is accepted. In such a case >> I see no problem with someone being the chair for a community and a >> committee as they are sufficiently abstracted positions in the >> majority of cases. In some cases this may even prove helpful, such >> as the chair of the Architecture community being the chair of a >> technical committee. > > Broadly agree although there will always be exceptions. I actually > think we need written rules here, just not in the Constitution, hence > my allusion to the Board's Rules of Procedure, which it can evolve > over time. Based on the current draft and parliamentary authority enacting such a rule would be trivial. Simply call the motion, debate as needed and vote it in. Done. Most of the "not in the constitution but written somewhere" type issues can be handled this way and adopted as resolutions. benr. From keith.wesolowski at sun.com Tue Jun 20 17:34:11 2006 From: keith.wesolowski at sun.com (Keith M Wesolowski) Date: Tue, 20 Jun 2006 17:34:11 -0700 Subject: [cab-discuss] CAB/OGB Meeting Notes: 6/16/06 In-Reply-To: <44984B84.3020709@cuddletech.com> References: <25998501.1150560204477.JavaMail.suncom@oss1> <4497DF6F.6070000@sun.com> <44984B84.3020709@cuddletech.com> Message-ID: <20060621003411.GA11238@sun.com> On Tue, Jun 20, 2006 at 12:24:52PM -0700, Ben Rockwood wrote: > The issue is with regard to disputes. Consider the following > situation: A member makes a contribution thats denied for some reason, > either by the cteam or the arc. The member is offended and rather than > abide by the decision of the body it submitted to he decides to petition > and ultimately the issue ends up with the OGB. The OGB can, as a court > of last resort, rule on the decision, however it has no power to enact > it. This illustrates the divide of the technical and social sides of > the organization. Therefore, it seems reasonable that we should give > the OGB some type of hook into the technical side of the organization. A good question to ask here might be 'what empowers a C-team to deny a proposed integration?' That power has to come from somewhere. A C-team is, in effect, the leadership of the currently-active project endorsed by a consolidation's community to manage the development of a particular release of that consolidation. In that view, the C-team's power arises from its position of leadership within that project. So, can the decisions of project leads be appealed? If so, to whom? Perhaps those decisions cannot be appealed, but one could ask the governing community to withdraw its endorsement of that project, effectively disbanding that C-team and (presumably) transferring its powers to a different group of people responsible for a functionally identical "project." The old C-team would retain authority over its project, but without the backing of the community, most if not all project teams would be expected to target the new community-endorsed project instead. An ARC cannot, in the model we contemplate here, actually deny a project team the right to putback. The denial is issued by the C-team, in response to the project's failure to meet that C-team's ARC review requirement. The project team is, of course, free to continue its operation as an independent entity, with or without any community's endorsement, and even to target other "consolidations," the leaders of which may elect not to require ARC review as a precondition for integration. Therefore I'm somewhat less concerned about the legitimacy of the ARC's authority; the ARC or ARCs are simply those committees which the various C-teams requiring ARC review recognise as being qualified to perform it. This scenario absolves the OGB of any possible appellate responsibility for technical decisions, and still leaves open the possibility of some form of appeal in the case of grievous abuses by a C-team. Simply put, the community draws its authority to endorse projects from the Constitution (except that this is mentioned nowhere), and by endorsing a particular project, a community formed to govern a consolidation indicates to contributors that they should consider that project the valid current release of that consolidation, with the project's leadership fully backed by that community. But nowhere does the Constitution indicate that this is the intent, and indeed one could easily construct an almost unlimited number of alternate strategies without violating its terms. If the intent is to insist that the communities and projects be used as building blocks to construct an overall technical delegation of power similar to the one I've described, then the constitution should if nothing else clarify that the OGB has none of the powers that would be required to alter it. I understand the desire to leave the thorny issues and minutiae for "later" in the form of rules of procedure. At the same time, a constitution that does little more than describe how the OGB is to be elected seems to me too thin to be useful. If one uses as a basis for the constitution the rules associated with the governing board of, say, a charitable foundation or corporation, one disregards the volume of implicit language (in the form of articles of incorporation, law, and regulation) defining that organisation's powers. The OGB, lacking that legal framework, has no corresponding grant beyond a Charter that in effect empowers its initial incarnation to construct a Constitution delegating the Charter's granted powers to, well, someone. In short, the drafts I've read so far provide a sound basis for the continuity of the OGB and for referenda, and establishes a valid operational basis for the OGB and the committees to which it is expected to delegate some or all of its powers. Unfortunately, nowhere is it specified what those powers are, which may be delegated (and to whom), or how they are to be used in practice. If we had the context of 'a charitable foundation created to serve the blind,' and all the legal framework that would imply, a simple set of rules for continuity and operation would suffice: the power to hire and fire employees and direct their activities in ways that align with the foundation's goals are implicit in such a framework. Without it, it is unclear to me what the OGB can do other than hold elections and meetings, the possible agendae of which are neither outlined nor constrained. Perhaps the answer is that the OGB has no important powers; it is to serve as an administrator, acknowledging communities, managing elections, and keeping records, much like the Secretary of State's office does in most US states, while all relevant powers (including those required to implement technical processes) lie with the communities. If that's the case, why not make that grant explicit (and specify whether and under what conditions it is revocable)? > Without such a provision we could potentially have a conflict. What if > James Dickens recent discussion about modifying SX:CR got proposed to > the OGB and the OGB approved of it.... how would that be handled? Right > now it would mean very little. And so we either need to empower the OGB > or make sure these types of requests never get to them. While I'm not sure of the context in this case, I don't see how the OGB or any of its delegates has anything to say about SXCR. SXCR is the product of a third party and is entirely the province of that third party's discretion. Other distributions and derivatives are afforded the same independence. Since the Constitution draft we have makes no mention of serparation or distribution of powers, it's unclear whether it's a 'default-deny' model (as the US federal constitution was intended to be) or established a 'default-allow' government in which the OGB, once elected, is assumed to have all powers not explicitly prohibited to it. If the intent is default-allow, the independence of third party products needs to be encoded somewhere, if only to comply with applicable law and regulation. If the intent is default-deny, I don't understand the relevance of the case. -- Keith M Wesolowski "Sir, we're surrounded!" Solaris Kernel Team "Excellent; we can attack in any direction!" From Glynn.Foster at Sun.COM Wed Jun 21 01:03:11 2006 From: Glynn.Foster at Sun.COM (Glynn Foster) Date: Wed, 21 Jun 2006 08:03:11 +0000 Subject: [cab-discuss] Board Removal In-Reply-To: <39C0DE93-F5D7-4BA4-AEFE-2CF358CF6997@Sun.COM> References: <25998501.1150560204477.JavaMail.suncom@oss1> <4497DF6F.6070000@sun.com> <44984B84.3020709@cuddletech.com> <39C0DE93-F5D7-4BA4-AEFE-2CF358CF6997@Sun.COM> Message-ID: <4498FD3F.4090804@sun.com> Hi, Simon Phipps wrote: > * In the event of the resignation (etc) of a member, the ballot from the > last election shall be reviewed and the candidate with the next most > votes shall be elected for the balance of the open term. [slightly off-topic..] Has there been any discussion of what the voting mechanism will be? Arguably having first past the post and some preferential mechanism [1] like proportional representation would potentially yield different results in a case like this. Glynn [1] In that you'd basically remove that candidate from the election results and re-calculate From benr at cuddletech.com Wed Jun 21 01:28:16 2006 From: benr at cuddletech.com (Ben Rockwood) Date: Wed, 21 Jun 2006 01:28:16 -0700 Subject: [cab-discuss] Board Removal In-Reply-To: <4498FD3F.4090804@sun.com> References: <25998501.1150560204477.JavaMail.suncom@oss1> <4497DF6F.6070000@sun.com> <44984B84.3020709@cuddletech.com> <39C0DE93-F5D7-4BA4-AEFE-2CF358CF6997@Sun.COM> <4498FD3F.4090804@sun.com> Message-ID: <44990320.2060707@cuddletech.com> Glynn Foster wrote: > Hi, > > Simon Phipps wrote: >> * In the event of the resignation (etc) of a member, the ballot from >> the last election shall be reviewed and the candidate with the next >> most votes shall be elected for the balance of the open term. > > [slightly off-topic..] > > Has there been any discussion of what the voting mechanism will be? > Arguably having first past the post and some preferential mechanism > [1] like proportional representation would potentially yield different > results in a case like this. Assuming I understand your question correctly, STV Meek. Proportional representation isn't an issue in the current draft. benr. From benr at cuddletech.com Wed Jun 21 02:34:25 2006 From: benr at cuddletech.com (Ben Rockwood) Date: Wed, 21 Jun 2006 02:34:25 -0700 Subject: [cab-discuss] Official Name of the Organization Message-ID: <449912A1.7030500@cuddletech.com> The constitution must include formal name for the organization established by the constitution. This is supplied in Article I. Early drafts used the name "OpenSolaris Organization", but in mail I'd noted a dislike for the name. I noted my inability to think of a better one and Stephen noted that in the past he'd used "OpenSolaris Initiative". I immediately like the sound of that, at least better than Organization, and Stephen agreed to make the change which is seen in the current draft. Following that discussion I began to think I'd made an error. The word "initiative" doesn't have a definition that matches our intended meaning, and has an implied temporary context. In hindsite "Organization" is far more appropriate than "Initiative", although I still think it sounds stuffy. I'd propose that we instead use "OpenSolaris Consortium". Its technically accurate and sounds better than Organization. Nothing will sound as right as "OpenSolaris Community", but because we're referencing in the constitution sub-entities named "Communities" there is a conflict. I checked the charter, and while "OpenSolaris community" is noted several times, a lower-case c is always used and therefore I don't take it to bind us to that name. Unless there is objection I'd propose the name change be adopted. benr. From Glynn.Foster at Sun.COM Wed Jun 21 03:54:41 2006 From: Glynn.Foster at Sun.COM (Glynn Foster) Date: Wed, 21 Jun 2006 10:54:41 +0000 Subject: [cab-discuss] Official Name of the Organization In-Reply-To: <449912A1.7030500@cuddletech.com> References: <449912A1.7030500@cuddletech.com> Message-ID: <44992571.4020004@sun.com> Hi, Ben Rockwood wrote: > I'd propose that we instead use "OpenSolaris Consortium". Its > technically accurate and sounds better than Organization. Nothing will > sound as right as "OpenSolaris Community", but because we're referencing > in the constitution sub-entities named "Communities" there is a > conflict. I checked the charter, and while "OpenSolaris community" is > noted several times, a lower-case c is always used and therefore I don't > take it to bind us to that name. Ugh, I dislike Consortium even more than I dislike Organization or Initiative. Regardless of the conflicts, I think we should either be OpenSolaris Project, or OpenSolaris Community. If we need to explicitly add some detail to explain that the core community consists of a number of sub-communities then so be it IMHO. Glynn From keith.wesolowski at sun.com Wed Jun 21 09:13:08 2006 From: keith.wesolowski at sun.com (Keith M Wesolowski) Date: Wed, 21 Jun 2006 09:13:08 -0700 Subject: [cab-discuss] Official Name of the Organization In-Reply-To: <44992571.4020004@sun.com> References: <449912A1.7030500@cuddletech.com> <44992571.4020004@sun.com> Message-ID: <20060621161307.GA3558@sun.com> On Wed, Jun 21, 2006 at 10:54:41AM +0000, Glynn Foster wrote: > Ugh, I dislike Consortium even more than I dislike Organization or > Initiative. Regardless of the conflicts, I think we should either be > OpenSolaris Project, or OpenSolaris Community. If we need to explicitly > add some detail to explain that the core community consists of a number > of sub-communities then so be it IMHO. Selecting a name which directly conflicts with and confuses the rest of the terminology in the constitution is simply a nonstarter. The bewildering array of terminology is problematic enough already, and in discussions between the development process team and the CAB, differences and ambiguities in terminology were the single most important stumbling block. In fact, that remains true today. If someone were to insist on emphasising the 'community' (small c) aspect of the effort, perhaps we could call it the OpenSolaris Metacommunity. That's probably the single most accurate word we could choose, and is made more appropriate by the distributed governance model we contemplate. I suppose that name lacks style, charisma, and that special something we all look for in a name, though. Project is outright wrong; it would even be wrong within Sun (Tonic is a program, not a project). Analogies elsewhere fail as well; no one calls it 'the Linux Project' or 'the Firefox Project'. Efforts substantially larger than, well, a project don't seem to have that label applied to them. -- Keith M Wesolowski "Sir, we're surrounded!" Solaris Kernel Team "Excellent; we can attack in any direction!" From rich.teer at rite-group.com Wed Jun 21 09:16:34 2006 From: rich.teer at rite-group.com (Rich Teer) Date: Wed, 21 Jun 2006 09:16:34 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [cab-discuss] Official Name of the Organization In-Reply-To: <449912A1.7030500@cuddletech.com> References: <449912A1.7030500@cuddletech.com> Message-ID: On Wed, 21 Jun 2006, Ben Rockwood wrote: > The constitution must include formal name for the organization established by > the constitution. This is supplied in Article I. > Early drafts used the name "OpenSolaris Organization", but in mail I'd noted a > dislike for the name. I noted my inability to think of a better one and > Stephen noted that in the past he'd used "OpenSolaris Initiative". I > immediately like the sound of that, at least better than Organization, and > Stephen agreed to make the change which is seen in the current draft. I agree that words like "community" and "project" should be avoided, to save confusion. How about "Meta-community", as in the OpenSolaris Meta-Community? A meta-community is a community of communities, which seems to fit the bill rather aptly in our case. -- Rich Teer, SCNA, SCSA, OpenSolaris CAB member President, Rite Online Inc. Voice: +1 (250) 979-1638 URL: http://www.rite-group.com/rich From Glynn.Foster at Sun.COM Wed Jun 21 09:31:18 2006 From: Glynn.Foster at Sun.COM (Glynn Foster) Date: Wed, 21 Jun 2006 16:31:18 +0000 Subject: [cab-discuss] Official Name of the Organization In-Reply-To: <20060621161307.GA3558@sun.com> References: <449912A1.7030500@cuddletech.com> <44992571.4020004@sun.com> <20060621161307.GA3558@sun.com> Message-ID: <44997456.8000104@sun.com> Hi, Keith M Wesolowski wrote: > On Wed, Jun 21, 2006 at 10:54:41AM +0000, Glynn Foster wrote: > >> Ugh, I dislike Consortium even more than I dislike Organization or >> Initiative. Regardless of the conflicts, I think we should either be >> OpenSolaris Project, or OpenSolaris Community. If we need to explicitly >> add some detail to explain that the core community consists of a number >> of sub-communities then so be it IMHO. > > Selecting a name which directly conflicts with and confuses the rest > of the terminology in the constitution is simply a nonstarter. The > bewildering array of terminology is problematic enough already, and in > discussions between the development process team and the CAB, > differences and ambiguities in terminology were the single most > important stumbling block. In fact, that remains true today. Even still, neither 'Consortium' or 'Institution' really give the impression that this is a community of open arms. We're not a standards body, and we're certainly not a lunatic asylum. First impressions count, and I think we should fix it from the top down if need be. Glynn From Casper.Dik at Sun.COM Wed Jun 21 09:32:38 2006 From: Casper.Dik at Sun.COM (Casper.Dik at Sun.COM) Date: Wed, 21 Jun 2006 18:32:38 +0200 Subject: [cab-discuss] Official Name of the Organization In-Reply-To: <44997456.8000104@sun.com> References: <449912A1.7030500@cuddletech.com> <44992571.4020004@sun.com> <20060621161307.GA3558@sun.com> <44997456.8000104@sun.com> Message-ID: <200606211632.k5LGWcLa018865@vaticaan.holland.sun.com> >Hi, > >Keith M Wesolowski wrote: >> On Wed, Jun 21, 2006 at 10:54:41AM +0000, Glynn Foster wrote: >> >>> Ugh, I dislike Consortium even more than I dislike Organization or >>> Initiative. Regardless of the conflicts, I think we should either be >>> OpenSolaris Project, or OpenSolaris Community. If we need to explicitly >>> add some detail to explain that the core community consists of a number >>> of sub-communities then so be it IMHO. >> >> Selecting a name which directly conflicts with and confuses the rest >> of the terminology in the constitution is simply a nonstarter. The >> bewildering array of terminology is problematic enough already, and in >> discussions between the development process team and the CAB, >> differences and ambiguities in terminology were the single most >> important stumbling block. In fact, that remains true today. > >Even still, neither 'Consortium' or 'Institution' really give the >impression that this is a community of open arms. We're not a standards >body, and we're certainly not a lunatic asylum. First impressions count, >and I think we should fix it from the top down if need be. OpenSolaris Nation? It seems to be rather unique and one step up from community in the order of things) Casper From benr at cuddletech.com Wed Jun 21 10:49:04 2006 From: benr at cuddletech.com (Ben Rockwood) Date: Wed, 21 Jun 2006 10:49:04 -0700 Subject: [cab-discuss] Official Name of the Organization In-Reply-To: <44997456.8000104@sun.com> References: <449912A1.7030500@cuddletech.com> <44992571.4020004@sun.com> <20060621161307.GA3558@sun.com> <44997456.8000104@sun.com> Message-ID: <44998690.3060109@cuddletech.com> Glynn Foster wrote: > Hi, > > Keith M Wesolowski wrote: >> On Wed, Jun 21, 2006 at 10:54:41AM +0000, Glynn Foster wrote: >> >>> Ugh, I dislike Consortium even more than I dislike Organization or >>> Initiative. Regardless of the conflicts, I think we should either be >>> OpenSolaris Project, or OpenSolaris Community. If we need to >>> explicitly add some detail to explain that the core community >>> consists of a number of sub-communities then so be it IMHO. >> >> Selecting a name which directly conflicts with and confuses the rest >> of the terminology in the constitution is simply a nonstarter. The >> bewildering array of terminology is problematic enough already, and in >> discussions between the development process team and the CAB, >> differences and ambiguities in terminology were the single most >> important stumbling block. In fact, that remains true today. > > Even still, neither 'Consortium' or 'Institution' really give the > impression that this is a community of open arms. We're not a > standards body, and we're certainly not a lunatic asylum. First > impressions count, and I think we should fix it from the top down if > need be. I hate to be blunt, but there is a limited window of decision here. As Keith pointed out, "Community" and "Project" don't fly. "Meta-Community" as proposed by Keith and Rich are perhaps the best middle ground. The decision is the CABs but their opinion should be based on community concent. So, Consortium, Organization, Initiative, Consortium.... we've gotta choose one and do it soon. As an aside.... the constitution is rarely something referenced by a project. How many people have read the Bylaws of Sun Microsystems? Or the Debian Constitution? Or the GNOME Bylaws? Very very very very few. We will all continue to refer to "OpenSolaris community" (small c) to refer to the entity en mass, this is simply the legal-ish name on paper. I recommend getting out a thesaurus and seeing there are better names... Consortium is the option I liked best and felt was the most technically accurate. Perhaps the "OpenSolaris Continuum" is a more appealing name for us Star Trek fans? :) (that was a joke btw...) benr. From rich.teer at rite-group.com Wed Jun 21 10:58:16 2006 From: rich.teer at rite-group.com (Rich Teer) Date: Wed, 21 Jun 2006 10:58:16 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [cab-discuss] Official Name of the Organization In-Reply-To: <44998690.3060109@cuddletech.com> References: <449912A1.7030500@cuddletech.com> <44992571.4020004@sun.com> <20060621161307.GA3558@sun.com> <44997456.8000104@sun.com> <44998690.3060109@cuddletech.com> Message-ID: On Wed, 21 Jun 2006, Ben Rockwood wrote: > As an aside.... the constitution is rarely something referenced by a project. > How many people have read the Bylaws of Sun Microsystems? Or the Debian > Constitution? Or the GNOME Bylaws? Very very very very few. We will all > continue to refer to "OpenSolaris community" (small c) to refer to the entity > en mass, this is simply the legal-ish name on paper. Agreed. > I recommend getting out a thesaurus and seeing there are better names... > Consortium is the option I liked best and felt was the most technically > accurate. Perhaps the "OpenSolaris Continuum" is a more appealing name for us > Star Trek fans? :) (that was a joke btw...) Nah, how about the "OpenSolaris Collective"? "We are the OpenSolaris Collective; your technological distinctiveness will be assimilated into ours. Resistance is futile!". :-) -- 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 Wed Jun 21 11:57:55 2006 From: sch at eng.sun.com (Stephen Hahn) Date: Wed, 21 Jun 2006 11:57:55 -0700 Subject: [cab-discuss] Official Name of the Organization In-Reply-To: <449912A1.7030500@cuddletech.com> References: <449912A1.7030500@cuddletech.com> Message-ID: <20060621185755.GE114338@eng.sun.com> * Ben Rockwood [2006-06-21 02:34]: > Following that discussion I began to think I'd made an error. The word > "initiative" doesn't have a definition that matches our intended > meaning, and has an implied temporary context. In hindsite > "Organization" is far more appropriate than "Initiative", although I > still think it sounds stuffy. I think, if you look at usage, rather than a dictionary definition, you'll see many examples of "Initiative" that don't admit to any temporary aspect. Some usage examples follow, based on the first page of a9.com's results for initiative. Oh, and there's OSI, too (http://opensource.org). Although I admire fearless coinage in general, "metacommunity" doesn't work for me. - Stephen ---- West Central Initiative A non-profit, independent public foundation serving the west central Minnesota counties of Becker, Clay, Douglas, Grant, Otter Tail, Pope, Stevens, Traverse, and Wilkin. Middle East Partnership Initiative The Middle East Partnership Initiative (MEPI) is a Presidential initiative founded to support economic, political, and educational reform efforts in the Middle East and champion opportunity for all ... The Open Digital Rights Language Initiative The Open Digital Rights Language (ODRL) Initiative is an international effort aimed at developing and promoting an open standard for the Digital Rights Management expression language. Budapest Open Access Initiative The Budapest Open Access Initiative: an international effort to make research articles in all academic fields freely available on the internet. Maine Learning Technology Initiative Provides information about program that provided laptops to all students in the 7th and 8th grade. Features history, student projects, curriculum resources, press, and news. Digital Libraries Initiative Phase 2 Resources and projects funded by the National Science Foundation. -- Stephen Hahn, PhD Solaris Kernel Development, Sun Microsystems stephen.hahn at sun.com http://blogs.sun.com/sch/ From sch at eng.sun.com Wed Jun 21 12:01:03 2006 From: sch at eng.sun.com (Stephen Hahn) Date: Wed, 21 Jun 2006 12:01:03 -0700 Subject: [cab-discuss] Official Name of the Organization In-Reply-To: <20060621185755.GE114338@eng.sun.com> References: <449912A1.7030500@cuddletech.com> <20060621185755.GE114338@eng.sun.com> Message-ID: <20060621190103.GF114338@eng.sun.com> * Stephen Hahn [2006-06-21 11:58]: > I think, if you look at usage, rather than a dictionary definition, > you'll see many examples of "Initiative" that don't admit to any > temporary aspect. If I look at Wiktionary, their second definition for the noun, initiative, actually is what I believe we intend (although my little Concise Oxford, 7th ed., lacks it): 2. A new development; a fresh approach to something; a new way of dealing with a problem. - Stephen From webmink at sun.com Wed Jun 21 17:35:32 2006 From: webmink at sun.com (Simon Phipps) Date: Thu, 22 Jun 2006 02:35:32 +0200 Subject: [cab-discuss] Official Name of the Organization In-Reply-To: <20060621185755.GE114338@eng.sun.com> References: <449912A1.7030500@cuddletech.com> <20060621185755.GE114338@eng.sun.com> Message-ID: <6F7793D8-C29B-4883-B636-0AFB4BA3E77D@sun.com> On Jun 21, 2006, at 20:57, Stephen Hahn wrote: > * Ben Rockwood [2006-06-21 02:34]: >> Following that discussion I began to think I'd made an error. The >> word >> "initiative" doesn't have a definition that matches our intended >> meaning, and has an implied temporary context. In hindsite >> "Organization" is far more appropriate than "Initiative", although I >> still think it sounds stuffy. > > I think, if you look at usage, rather than a dictionary definition, > you'll see many examples of "Initiative" that don't admit to any > temporary aspect. I agree with this. It is my number two choice (see below for number one). > > Some usage examples follow, based on the first page of a9.com's > results for initiative. Oh, and there's OSI, too > (http://opensource.org). There will be a namespace collision whatever we pick. I think OpenSolaris Initiative (OSI) strays too close in acronym space though. Despite the correctly identified absolute terminological collision I think calling the OpenSolaris community what we call the OpenSolaris community - namely, the OpenSolaris Community - will only potentially confuse the very most pedantic, and they are paying attention to the detail anyway (and as has been said no-one is going to read this document apart from them). I vote firmly that the Constitution should apply to the OpenSolaris Community. Or, if you prefer, the OpenSolaris Communities. > > Although I admire fearless coinage in general, "metacommunity" > doesn't work for me. It is appealing to my pedantic side but - I agree. S. From sch at eng.sun.com Wed Jun 21 21:58:00 2006 From: sch at eng.sun.com (Stephen Hahn) Date: Wed, 21 Jun 2006 21:58:00 -0700 Subject: [cab-discuss] Board Removal In-Reply-To: <39C0DE93-F5D7-4BA4-AEFE-2CF358CF6997@Sun.COM> References: <25998501.1150560204477.JavaMail.suncom@oss1> <4497DF6F.6070000@sun.com> <44984B84.3020709@cuddletech.com> <39C0DE93-F5D7-4BA4-AEFE-2CF358CF6997@Sun.COM> Message-ID: <20060622045800.GA101981@eng.sun.com> * Simon Phipps [2006-06-20 14:03]: > On Jun 20, 2006, at 20:24, Ben Rockwood wrote: (actually Glynn > Foster's reply) > On the contrary, this is the sort of issue that must be handled in > advance of its occurrence. I have previously proposed that a > mechanism to remove an individual member is not needed due tio the > short term, but that the OGB should be empowered to force an election > if it feels unable to continue to operate for any reason (such as a > member who obstructs business, or a context that is intolerable to > all). I therefore propose again what I did before: > > * In the event of the resignation (etc) of a member, the ballot from > the last election shall be reviewed and the candidate with the next > most votes shall be elected for the balance of the open term. Sure. > * In the event that there are no more candidates, the Board shall > operate as usual with a reduced membership Sure. > * In the event the Board ceases to be able to be quorate, a new > election shall be held for the balance of the term (or possibly for > the next term plus the balance of the current term). Current > members may stand again, within term limits. Sure. Anyone with strong feelings about just having a new one year term begin with that election? That is, failure to quorate causes the annual election date to move. (It appeals to my need for a virtual organization to pay no heed to physical seasons.) > * In the event that the Board feels permanently unable to operate for > any reason, it may vote to dissolve the Board and force a new > election as above. If the Board drops below the Charter quorum of three, as given by Charter 1.1, then resignations would bring us to a potentially equivalent position. I suppose we could discuss the situation where the Board is locked on all topics, yet insufficient resignations are tendered, and the Board (being locked) cannot pass the vote to dissolve. That is, I think we need a bit more language here, or we should drop this last bit. I'll add the others to Article V, between Clauses 4 and 5. - 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 Wed Jun 21 22:17:56 2006 From: sch at eng.sun.com (Stephen Hahn) Date: Wed, 21 Jun 2006 22:17:56 -0700 Subject: [cab-discuss] CAB/OGB Meeting Notes: 6/16/06 In-Reply-To: <20060621003411.GA11238@sun.com> References: <25998501.1150560204477.JavaMail.suncom@oss1> <4497DF6F.6070000@sun.com> <44984B84.3020709@cuddletech.com> <20060621003411.GA11238@sun.com> Message-ID: <20060622051755.GB101981@eng.sun.com> * Keith M Wesolowski [2006-06-20 17:34]: > On Tue, Jun 20, 2006 at 12:24:52PM -0700, Ben Rockwood wrote: > [specific appeal process elided] > > But nowhere does the Constitution indicate that this is the intent, > and indeed one could easily construct an almost unlimited number of > alternate strategies without violating its terms. If the intent is to > insist that the communities and projects be used as building blocks to > construct an overall technical delegation of power similar to the one > I've described, then the constitution should if nothing else clarify > that the OGB has none of the powers that would be required to alter > it. I understand the desire to leave the thorny issues and minutiae > for "later" in the form of rules of procedure. At the same time, a > constitution that does little more than describe how the OGB is to be > elected seems to me too thin to be useful. If one uses as a basis for > the constitution the rules associated with the governing board of, > say, a charitable foundation or corporation, one disregards the volume > of implicit language (in the form of articles of incorporation, law, > and regulation) defining that organisation's powers. The OGB, lacking > that legal framework, has no corresponding grant beyond a Charter that > in effect empowers its initial incarnation to construct a Constitution > delegating the Charter's granted powers to, well, someone. Although I am firmly of the belief that this procedure is a bootstrap, and the only way to create a functioning Board is to allow it to probe the space of problems and resolutions on a case-by-case basis, I think it's worth entertaining this question, if it can be made substantially more specific: what powers do you envision the Constitution enumerating? You already know that I believe that the Charter has some unfortunate language that can be read to require an impossibly detailed understanding of that space of encountered problems--specifically those problems that cannot confront us at present but could exist in the future ("unknowable unknowns"). As a result, I would expect Constitutional language that also left the possibility of recisions of responsibility by the OGB or by Sun open (or the acquisition of same by subsequent Charter amendment). So, what powers? > In short, the drafts I've read so far provide a sound basis for the > continuity of the OGB and for referenda, and establishes a valid > operational basis for the OGB and the committees to which it is > expected to delegate some or all of its powers. Unfortunately, > nowhere is it specified what those powers are, which may be delegated > (and to whom), or how they are to be used in practice. If we had the > context of 'a charitable foundation created to serve the blind,' and > all the legal framework that would imply, a simple set of rules for > continuity and operation would suffice: the power to hire and fire > employees and direct their activities in ways that align with the > foundation's goals are implicit in such a framework. Without it, it > is unclear to me what the OGB can do other than hold elections and > meetings, the possible agendae of which are neither outlined nor > constrained. > > Perhaps the answer is that the OGB has no important powers; it is to > serve as an administrator, acknowledging communities, managing > elections, and keeping records, much like the Secretary of State's > office does in most US states, while all relevant powers (including > those required to implement technical processes) lie with the > communities. If that's the case, why not make that grant explicit > (and specify whether and under what conditions it is revocable)? This, I suppose, is buried in III.4, in that all disputes between Communities involve individuals. I believe adding equivalent text to Article IV that covers Community-Community issue resolution would be valuable. I again struggle with, if we don't really understand how Communities could come into conflict, where to set a boundary on Community powers versus Board powers. For instance, if the creation of a Best Practices Community was approved, we can anticipate a series of discussions where that new (idealistic) Community attempts to prosecute change among those Communities delivering consolidations or distributions (or their endorsed Projects). > > Without such a provision we could potentially have a conflict. What if > > James Dickens recent discussion about modifying SX:CR got proposed to > > the OGB and the OGB approved of it.... how would that be handled? Right > > now it would mean very little. And so we either need to empower the OGB > > or make sure these types of requests never get to them. > > While I'm not sure of the context in this case, I don't see how the > OGB or any of its delegates has anything to say about SXCR. SXCR is > the product of a third party and is entirely the province of that > third party's discretion. Other distributions and derivatives are > afforded the same independence. Since the Constitution draft we have > makes no mention of serparation or distribution of powers, it's > unclear whether it's a 'default-deny' model (as the US federal > constitution was intended to be) or established a 'default-allow' > government in which the OGB, once elected, is assumed to have all > powers not explicitly prohibited to it. If the intent is > default-allow, the independence of third party products needs to be > encoded somewhere, if only to comply with applicable law and > regulation. If the intent is default-deny, I don't understand the > relevance of the case. There was a topic, in an earlier thread, about authority over undefined bodies, that I believe was resolved with "no authority". (CDDL and the other licenses don't allow for such authority in any case.) This probably takes us to default-deny. The SX:CR question, although it was phrased in terms of a distribution, and also was unfair to one or more projects' goals for determining how they might publish their work products, could have been interesting to the Board and the Working Group if phrased in terms of creating a new consolidation (for experimental components). - Stephen -- Stephen Hahn, PhD Solaris Kernel Development, Sun Microsystems stephen.hahn at sun.com http://blogs.sun.com/sch/ From al at logical-approach.com Thu Jun 22 04:04:35 2006 From: al at logical-approach.com (Al Hopper) Date: Thu, 22 Jun 2006 06:04:35 -0500 (CDT) Subject: [cab-discuss] Board Removal In-Reply-To: <20060622045800.GA101981@eng.sun.com> References: <25998501.1150560204477.JavaMail.suncom@oss1> <4497DF6F.6070000@sun.com> <44984B84.3020709@cuddletech.com> <39C0DE93-F5D7-4BA4-AEFE-2CF358CF6997@Sun.COM> <20060622045800.GA101981@eng.sun.com> Message-ID: On Wed, 21 Jun 2006, Stephen Hahn wrote: > * Simon Phipps [2006-06-20 14:03]: > > On Jun 20, 2006, at 20:24, Ben Rockwood wrote: (actually Glynn > > Foster's reply) > > On the contrary, this is the sort of issue that must be handled in > > advance of its occurrence. I have previously proposed that a > > mechanism to remove an individual member is not needed due tio the > > short term, but that the OGB should be empowered to force an election > > if it feels unable to continue to operate for any reason (such as a > > member who obstructs business, or a context that is intolerable to > > all). I therefore propose again what I did before: > > > > * In the event of the resignation (etc) of a member, the ballot from > > the last election shall be reviewed and the candidate with the next > > most votes shall be elected for the balance of the open term. > > Sure. > > > * In the event that there are no more candidates, the Board shall > > operate as usual with a reduced membership > > Sure. > > > * In the event the Board ceases to be able to be quorate, a new > > election shall be held for the balance of the term (or possibly for > > the next term plus the balance of the current term). Current > > members may stand again, within term limits. > > Sure. Anyone with strong feelings about just having a new one year > term begin with that election? That is, failure to quorate causes the > annual election date to move. (It appeals to my need for a virtual > organization to pay no heed to physical seasons.) It has some appeal - but would complicate the determination of term limits. For instance, if (a member of) the board had been in office for 6 months, then we need to "complicate" the logic used to calculate term limits - as it's unlikely that the board member would find themselves in a position to server another 6 months in order to reach their term limit. What if it were to happen twice in 12 months? That would place a burden on the communities - to hold 2 elections in 12 months. My conclusion is that an unscheduled election should be a "last resort" option only. > > * In the event that the Board feels permanently unable to operate for > > any reason, it may vote to dissolve the Board and force a new > > election as above. > > If the Board drops below the Charter quorum of three, as given by > Charter 1.1, then resignations would bring us to a potentially > equivalent position. I suppose we could discuss the situation where > the Board is locked on all topics, yet insufficient resignations are > tendered, and the Board (being locked) cannot pass the vote to > dissolve. > > That is, I think we need a bit more language here, or we should drop > this last bit. I'll add the others to Article V, between Clauses 4 > and 5. > 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 rich.teer at rite-group.com Thu Jun 22 10:03:29 2006 From: rich.teer at rite-group.com (Rich Teer) Date: Thu, 22 Jun 2006 10:03:29 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [cab-discuss] Partial Review of Current Constitution, Part 2 (Restricting chairmanships) In-Reply-To: References: <44913082.5020306@cuddletech.com> <20060616184206.GC101871@eng.sun.com> <0347B460-0050-4FBD-BD17-20C1395A0D7A@sun.com> <44987695.4040700@cuddletech.com> Message-ID: On Wed, 21 Jun 2006, Simon Phipps wrote: > Broadly agree although there will always be exceptions. I actually think we > need written rules here, just not in the Constitution, hence my allusion to > the Board's Rules of Procedure, which it can evolve over time. +1. Presumably, the RoP would be easier (and less formal) to amend than the Constituion? -- Rich Teer, SCNA, SCSA, OpenSolaris CAB member President, Rite Online Inc. Voice: +1 (250) 979-1638 URL: http://www.rite-group.com/rich From benr at cuddletech.com Thu Jun 22 11:29:57 2006 From: benr at cuddletech.com (Ben Rockwood) Date: Thu, 22 Jun 2006 11:29:57 -0700 Subject: [cab-discuss] Friday CAB Call Message-ID: <449AE1A5.3000806@cuddletech.com> This is a 24.5 hour reminder... It was my understanding that the CAB desired a con-call Friday at Noon, as we did last week. There has been no confirmation made thus far to that effect. Can we please get acknowledgment that a call is intended to occur and that a quorum will be present? benr. From Jim.Grisanzio at Sun.COM Thu Jun 22 11:45:32 2006 From: Jim.Grisanzio at Sun.COM (Jim Grisanzio) Date: Thu, 22 Jun 2006 11:45:32 -0700 Subject: [cab-discuss] Friday CAB Call In-Reply-To: <449AE1A5.3000806@cuddletech.com> References: <449AE1A5.3000806@cuddletech.com> Message-ID: <449AE54C.4050105@sun.com> just sent the details Ben Rockwood wrote: > This is a 24.5 hour reminder... It was my understanding that the CAB > desired a con-call Friday at Noon, as we did last week. There has been > no confirmation made thus far to that effect. Can we please get > acknowledgment that a call is intended to occur and that a quorum will > be present? > > > benr. From al at logical-approach.com Thu Jun 22 12:14:00 2006 From: al at logical-approach.com (Al Hopper) Date: Thu, 22 Jun 2006 14:14:00 -0500 (CDT) Subject: [cab-discuss] Friday CAB Call In-Reply-To: <449AE1A5.3000806@cuddletech.com> References: <449AE1A5.3000806@cuddletech.com> Message-ID: On Thu, 22 Jun 2006, Ben Rockwood wrote: > This is a 24.5 hour reminder... It was my understanding that the CAB ^^^^ :) Thanks Ben. I'll be present. > desired a con-call Friday at Noon, as we did last week. There has been > no confirmation made thus far to that effect. Can we please get > acknowledgment that a call is intended to occur and that a quorum will > be present? 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 webmink at sun.com Thu Jun 22 15:17:37 2006 From: webmink at sun.com (Simon Phipps) Date: Thu, 22 Jun 2006 23:17:37 +0100 Subject: [cab-discuss] Partial Review of Current Constitution, Part 2 (Restricting chairmanships) In-Reply-To: References: <44913082.5020306@cuddletech.com> <20060616184206.GC101871@eng.sun.com> <0347B460-0050-4FBD-BD17-20C1395A0D7A@sun.com> <44987695.4040700@cuddletech.com> Message-ID: On Jun 22, 2006, at 18:03, Rich Teer wrote: > On Wed, 21 Jun 2006, Simon Phipps wrote: > >> Broadly agree although there will always be exceptions. I >> actually think we >> need written rules here, just not in the Constitution, hence my >> allusion to >> the Board's Rules of Procedure, which it can evolve over time. > > +1. Presumably, the RoP would be easier (and less formal) to amend > than > the Constituion? > Yes - as Ben indicated, they would be simply the matter of Board resolutions. S. From keith.wesolowski at sun.com Thu Jun 22 19:25:18 2006 From: keith.wesolowski at sun.com (Keith M Wesolowski) Date: Thu, 22 Jun 2006 19:25:18 -0700 Subject: [cab-discuss] CAB/OGB Meeting Notes: 6/16/06 In-Reply-To: <20060622051755.GB101981@eng.sun.com> References: <25998501.1150560204477.JavaMail.suncom@oss1> <4497DF6F.6070000@sun.com> <44984B84.3020709@cuddletech.com> <20060621003411.GA11238@sun.com> <20060622051755.GB101981@eng.sun.com> Message-ID: <20060623022518.GA6115@sun.com> On Wed, Jun 21, 2006 at 10:17:56PM -0700, Stephen Hahn wrote: > Although I am firmly of the belief that this procedure is a bootstrap, > and the only way to create a functioning Board is to allow it to probe > the space of problems and resolutions on a case-by-case basis, I think > it's worth entertaining this question, if it can be made substantially > more specific: what powers do you envision the Constitution > enumerating? There is no tie here to what actually matters - the code (and equivalents, for those consolidations which deliver technically different but conceptually analogous products). Who has the power to: - decide whether a particular change to particular code is acceptable, - establish and enforce one or more processes for making that decision, - alter those processes once established, - bring a question before a Community, - determine which questions may be brought before a Community, - determine which of those questions require informal consensus, which require a ballot, and which require consensus with veto, - establish or alter the domain of a Community, or determine that a Community has attampted to settle a question outside its legitimate domain (perhaps this is a concrete example of inter-Community conflict of a type not adequately covered by III.4)? It appears that many of these powers are in fect delegated to Projects, and that Communities are expected to manage those Projects by establishing prerequisites for endorsement. But this is not specified anywhere. Even if it were, wouldn't the OGB need the power to establish a global development process which at least Consolidation-shepherd Communities are obliged to demand of Projects seeking their endorsement? So, then, who has the power to: - create a Project (or cause one to be created), - endorse a Project, - veto or prevent the creation or continuation of a Project, - establish global or Community-wide criteria for making any of the above decisions, If the OGB dislikes a Project that a Community has endorsed, may it force the Community to withdraw its endorsement? May it forcibly disband a Project {with,without} Community endorsements? Can Sun (or anyone else), by sole virtue of its guardianship of the underlying infrastructure, veto the very existence of a Project, and if so, under what circumstances? What would happen to a Project endorsed by a Community and (to the extent required) the OGB but forcibly removed or disbanded by Sun (if Sun in fact has that power)? Article 2.5 of the Charter could be read to require that the Constitution make some mention of at least the general circumstances surrounding Sun's present ownership of infrastructure, even if only to separate that implementation from the conceptual existence and legitimacy of the entities represented within that infrastructure. Finally, which of the above powers can further be delegated? For example, if a Community wished to establish a CGB comprised, perhaps, of a subset of its Core Contributors, would a vote establishing that board be valid? Would it be sufficient to transfer to that board any or all of the powers which would otherwise be reserved to the Contributors or Core Contributors? > You already know that I believe that the Charter has some > unfortunate language that can be read to require an impossibly > detailed understanding of that space of encountered > problems--specifically those problems that cannot confront us at > present but could exist in the future ("unknowable unknowns"). As a > result, I would expect Constitutional language that also left the > possibility of recisions of responsibility by the OGB or by Sun open > (or the acquisition of same by subsequent Charter amendment). Agreed; hence, requirement 2.1. I suspect our disagreement here, if one exists, is simply one of degree. That mechanisms must exist for coping with unknown future problems is not in dispute, only the form those mechanisms should take. I'm not at all comfortable with handing the OGB - any OGB - effectively unlimited authority, the exercise of which requires nothing more than approval by a bare majority of elected individuals. I'm equally uncomfortable with a process that has now consumed 15 months yielding a document that makes no serious attempt to address these difficult problems, presumably under the belief that a future OGB, composed of persons not certain to be any better or wiser than the members of the Initial OGB, will be better equipped to do so. > > Perhaps the answer is that the OGB has no important powers; it is to > > serve as an administrator, acknowledging communities, managing > > elections, and keeping records, much like the Secretary of State's > > office does in most US states, while all relevant powers (including > > those required to implement technical processes) lie with the > > communities. If that's the case, why not make that grant explicit > > (and specify whether and under what conditions it is revocable)? > > This, I suppose, is buried in III.4, in that all disputes between > Communities involve individuals. I believe adding equivalent text to > Article IV that covers Community-Community issue resolution would be > valuable. > > I again struggle with, if we don't really understand how Communities > could come into conflict, where to set a boundary on Community powers > versus Board powers. For instance, if the creation of a Best > Practices Community was approved, we can anticipate a series of > discussions where that new (idealistic) Community attempts to > prosecute change among those Communities delivering consolidations or > distributions (or their endorsed Projects). Perhaps the OGB should be given the power to in some way limit the domain of a Community at the time of its inception. Or perhaps the actual effective powers of Communities should be circumscribed outright by the Constitution itself. The constitution defines Communities simply as groups of individuals; a tighter definition would permit recognition of at least some constraints on inter-Community conflict. > The SX:CR question, although it was phrased in terms of a distribution, > and also was unfair to one or more projects' goals for determining how > they might publish their work products, could have been interesting to > the Board and the Working Group if phrased in terms of creating a new > consolidation (for experimental components). The Constitution doesn't recognise Consolidations, nor define them. Nor does it establish the existence of Consolidation-shepherd Communities or specify whether such Communities are in any way distinct from others. Since the meaning of a Consolidation is well-understood and unlikely to change dramatically, language could be added to the Constitution describing the relationship among Communities, Consolidations, Projects, and the OGB. I understand the desire to "make it up as we go along" rather than attempt to address a vast collection of hypotheticals of uncertain importance. At the same time, if I were a member of the first elected OGB, it would be unclear to me that our Board posesses the necessary powers to address any interesting issue that might come before us. More importantly, even if I were satisfied that Article XII is sufficiently elastic, I would have no record of the intended operation of Communities, the status of Projects, or - and this is key - where lies the separation of powers between the OGB and Communities. As written, I would have to conclude that Communities have no power whatsoever; they are inoperable because they have no explicitly enumerated powers, including the power to organise their own internal governance structure. The OGB, under this interpretation, would have the power to establish that structure, except that the Constitution itself limits the power to govern a Community to that Community's Contributors and Core Contributors! In effect, Article IV: * delegates an empty set of powers to Communities, * obligates them to contruct their internal government using only that set (unlike the OGB, Communities have no elastic provision), and * implicitly forbids anyone else, including the OGB, from interfering with that construction. While OGB membership would be challenging under this Constitution, Community leadership would be impossible. As a trivial example, suppose I, as Core Contributor of the Pedant Community, moved to require a ballot, as described in IV.2.1.2-3, to decide all future motions. If my motion were seconded, there would be no way to determine whether it carries. In fact, the motion isn't even valid, because the Constitution does not give the Community the power to decide such a motion, but only *who* would decide it, were the decision mechanism known. Section 2.8 in the Charter exists to prevent this very problem. It would indeed be unfortunate if it required a rigid and inflexible delegation of powers, but it does not. All it requires is that the Constitution grant Communities and Committees the powers necessary to operate. Perhaps: IV.2.2.3. Each Community shall be empowered to establish, at the time of its inception, and to modify from time to time thereafter, the procedures by which it will decide such questions as may be presented to it. These procedures may not conflict with any part of this Constitution. These procedures will be operable upon or following the Community's inception once a majority of the Community's Core Contributors have approved them and no Core Contributor has vetoed them. IV.2.2.4. A Community may endorse any Project. This endorsement may be withdrawn by the issuing Community. A Community has sole responsibility for issuing and withdrawing its endorsements, for establishing criteria for doing so, and for, at its sole option, publishing its endorsement criteria and/or a list of endorsed projects. We could further contemplate the idea of Consolidation-shepherd Communities in subsequent clauses. Note that IV.2.2.4 isn't strictly required, since the OGB could assert that it holds the power to permit Communities the privileges in that section by virtue of Article XII. Because 2.2.3 would permit the Community to establish its own mechanism for deciding whether and how to use such newly-delegated powers, the Community can take advantage of the new policy without further action on the part of the OGB. Without 2.2.3, however, the OGB's delegation of endorsement - and any other - authority is meaningless absent a Constitutional amendment. -- Keith M Wesolowski "Sir, we're surrounded!" Solaris Kernel Team "Excellent; we can attack in any direction!" From stephen.harpster at sun.com Fri Jun 23 09:57:30 2006 From: stephen.harpster at sun.com (Stephen Harpster) Date: Fri, 23 Jun 2006 09:57:30 PDT Subject: [cab-discuss] Re: CAB/OGB Meeting Notes: 6/16/06 In-Reply-To: <20060623022518.GA6115@sun.com> Message-ID: <16946464.1151081880338.JavaMail.suncom@oss1> I think you need some way to break a tie and the OGB seems the most logical place to do that. What if the community split, each half wanting a project that did the same thing as the other half, but implemented differently? As an example, consider XFree86 vs. Xouvert. Having both in OpenSolaris doesn't make sense. Somebody needs to decide rather than having a stalemate. So I don't think you can divide technology from society entirely. This message posted from opensolaris.org From stephen.harpster at sun.com Fri Jun 23 10:03:58 2006 From: stephen.harpster at sun.com (Stephen Harpster) Date: Fri, 23 Jun 2006 10:03:58 PDT Subject: [cab-discuss] Re: CAB/OGB Meeting Notes: 6/16/06 In-Reply-To: <25998501.1150560204477.JavaMail.suncom@oss1> Message-ID: <6841919.1151082291850.JavaMail.suncom@oss1> > * It was pointed out that the OGB doesn't necessarily have the power to to enact changes. However, ARCs and c-teams are the current bodies that the OGB would re-authorize for these purposes. Are "ARCs and c-teams" the ones that Sun has and uses, or are these OGB defined teams containing non-Sun employees, that coincidently have the same names as the Sun ones? This message posted from opensolaris.org From Sara.Dornsife at Sun.COM Fri Jun 23 12:26:57 2006 From: Sara.Dornsife at Sun.COM (Sara Dornsife) Date: Fri, 23 Jun 2006 14:26:57 -0500 Subject: [cab-discuss] Re: Request for preliminary list of contributors In-Reply-To: <20060613203054.GA187528@eng.sun.com> References: <20060613203054.GA187528@eng.sun.com> Message-ID: <449C4081.1050503@sun.com> Sorry I missed this, it got lost in the anniversary mail. This list is all about the mktg community, so same thing in first column. mktg sarad community lead lkr healthy participator in conversations and proposals timf offers all sorts of help and input and support benr voice of community a lot for mktg ideas patrickf bi-weekly stats contributions, conversation on list richteer another voice of the community and willing reviewer on docs and proposals spp Stephen is always willing to offer input on mktg activities bonnie on all calls, great reviewer, helps to balance mktg with eng requirements How many do you want? I've intentionally left Jim off the list. Sara Stephen Hahn wrote: > As you may (or may not) know, there is a working group charged by the > OpenSolaris Governing Board with developing a constitution for the > OpenSolaris community. You can see the draft under discussion at > > http://www.genunix.org/wiki/index.php?title=OpenSolaris_Governance_Draft_01 > > A key aspect of all the drafts is that the Communities are expected > to identify their Contributors and Core Contributors. These lists > will then be used to generate rolls of eligible Voting Members for > the election of new Governing Board members, and to ratify the > initial version of the Constitution. > > You also may (or may not) know that your OpenSolaris ID is associated > as a Community Leader with one or more Communities on OpenSolaris. > As a dry run, and potentially for use for ratification, we are asking > you to provide the working group with an initial list of Contributors > and Core Contributors. Because the opensolaris.org content > infrastructure has a limited permissions mechanism, we know that some > people have been made Community Leaders for editing reasons, rather > than in sympathy with the definitions included below. (The key > aspect of a Core Contributor is that, in a dispute requiring some > consensus mechanism, that he or she would possess a veto.) If you > are uncertain about whether you should be participating in such a > discussion, confer with the other Leads of your Community or > Communities. > > It would be helpful if the list you constructed were structured as > three columns: contributor type, OpenSolaris ID, and a sentence of > justification. A very short example: > > contributor sch Stephen has been sending out irritating mail for the duration of the project. > core jimgris Jim has been an effective communicator for OpenSolaris. > > (Don't forget to mention which Community your list represents.) > > Please send your preliminary lists directly to Jim Grisanzio, myself, > or to cab-discuss at opensolaris.org. I reluctantly ask that you > attempt to send the list or your status on creating a list by noon > PDT this Friday, 16 June. > > Questions may also be sent to any of Jim, myself, or the OGB alias. > > Thanks > Stephen > > ---- > > IV.2.1.2. Contributor. A Member who is designated a Contributor to the > Community is considered, at the time of the designation, to have been given a > grant of Voting Member status to the Organization. > > 1. Furthermore, the Contributor has one (1) vote in Community consensus > mechanisms that utilize balloting. The Contributor does not have a veto > in Community consensus mechanisms that allow for vetoing. > 2. A Member can be nominated to Contributor by any existing Contributor or > Core Contributor of the Community in question. The nomination will be > considered approved if a majority of the Contributors and Core > Contributors of the Community agree, and no Core Contributors veto the > nomination. > 3. The Contributor designation is valid for a period of two (2) years, at > which point it expires and the Member is redesignated as an Emeritus > Contributor to the Community. > > IV.2.1.3. Core Contributor. A Member who is designated a Core Contributor to > the Community is considered, at the time of the designation, to have been given > a grant of Voting Member status to the Organization. Furthermore, the Core > Contributor has one (1) vote in Community consensus mechanisms that utilize > balloting and has a veto in Community consensus mechanisms that allow for > vetoing. > > 1. A Member can be nominated to Core Contributor by any existing Core > Contributor of the Community in question. The nomination will be > considered approved if a majority of the Core Contributors of the > Community agree, and no Core Contributors veto the nomination. > 2. For a newly created Community, the initial Core Contributors will be > designated by the Governing Board or a committee acting on its behalf. > 3. The Core Contributor designation is valid for a period of two (2) years, > at which point it expires and the Member is redesignated as an Emeritus > Contributor to the Community. > From sommerfeld at sun.com Sat Jun 24 09:04:57 2006 From: sommerfeld at sun.com (Bill Sommerfeld) Date: Sat, 24 Jun 2006 12:04:57 -0400 Subject: [cab-discuss] Re: CAB/OGB Meeting Notes: 6/16/06 In-Reply-To: <6841919.1151082291850.JavaMail.suncom@oss1> References: <6841919.1151082291850.JavaMail.suncom@oss1> Message-ID: <1151165097.1221.17.camel@localhost> On Fri, 2006-06-23 at 13:03, Stephen Harpster wrote: > > * It was pointed out that the OGB doesn't necessarily have the power to to enact changes. However, ARCs and c-teams are the current bodies that the OGB would re-authorize for these purposes. > > Are "ARCs and c-teams" the ones that Sun has and uses, or are these > OGB defined teams containing non-Sun employees, that coincidently have > the same names as the Sun ones? why do these have to be mutually exclusive? The ARC I'm on has, in the past, had non-sun-employees as members and is fully expecting to have non-sun-employee members in the future once the opensolaris.org infrastructure gets to the point where this is feasible. - Bill From tiffanyongsiaco at yahoo.com Sat Jun 24 20:37:53 2006 From: tiffanyongsiaco at yahoo.com (Tiffany Ongsiaco) Date: Sat, 24 Jun 2006 20:37:53 PDT Subject: [cab-discuss] Re: List of nominees In-Reply-To: <448EE308.2070406@sun.com> Message-ID: <6629092.1151206703264.JavaMail.suncom@oss1> [b] Hi I'm Tiffany Ongsiaco. I'm new to Sun. [/b] This message posted from opensolaris.org From sommerfeld at sun.com Sun Jun 25 20:14:00 2006 From: sommerfeld at sun.com (Bill Sommerfeld) Date: Sun, 25 Jun 2006 23:14:00 -0400 Subject: [cab-discuss] Official Name of the Organization In-Reply-To: <44998690.3060109@cuddletech.com> References: <449912A1.7030500@cuddletech.com> <44992571.4020004@sun.com> <20060621161307.GA3558@sun.com> <44997456.8000104@sun.com> <44998690.3060109@cuddletech.com> Message-ID: <1151291640.1221.774.camel@localhost> On Wed, 2006-06-21 at 13:49, Ben Rockwood wrote: > I recommend getting out a thesaurus and seeing there are better names... > Consortium is the option I liked best and felt was the most technically > accurate. Perhaps the "OpenSolaris Continuum" is a more appealing name > for us Star Trek fans? :) (that was a joke btw...) Federation Confederation Authority Or, if we decide to demonstrate a sense of humor... Conspiracy Cabal Syndicate Cartel Any others? :-) - Bill From benr at cuddletech.com Sun Jun 25 21:50:56 2006 From: benr at cuddletech.com (Ben Rockwood) Date: Sun, 25 Jun 2006 21:50:56 -0700 Subject: [cab-discuss] Official Name of the Organization In-Reply-To: <1151291640.1221.774.camel@localhost> References: <449912A1.7030500@cuddletech.com> <44992571.4020004@sun.com> <20060621161307.GA3558@sun.com> <44997456.8000104@sun.com> <44998690.3060109@cuddletech.com> <1151291640.1221.774.camel@localhost> Message-ID: <449F67B0.70000@cuddletech.com> Bill Sommerfeld wrote: >On Wed, 2006-06-21 at 13:49, Ben Rockwood wrote: > > > >>I recommend getting out a thesaurus and seeing there are better names... >>Consortium is the option I liked best and felt was the most technically >>accurate. Perhaps the "OpenSolaris Continuum" is a more appealing name >>for us Star Trek fans? :) (that was a joke btw...) >> >> > >Federation >Confederation >Authority > >Or, if we decide to demonstrate a sense of humor... > >Conspiracy >Cabal >Syndicate >Cartel > >Any others? :-) > > The name was formally agreed upon by the 3 CAB members present (Al, Rich, Simon) on Friday's Con-Call in a unanimous vote to be the previously debated "OpenSolaris Community". This is reflected in Stephen's edit to the working draft make later that day and seen here: http://www.genunix.org/wiki/index.php?title=OpenSolaris_Governance_Draft_01&diff=2374&oldid=2370 benr. From sch at eng.sun.com Sun Jun 25 22:40:04 2006 From: sch at eng.sun.com (Stephen Hahn) Date: Sun, 25 Jun 2006 22:40:04 -0700 Subject: [cab-discuss] Preliminary text on 6/23 discussion topics Message-ID: <20060626054004.GA115763@eng.sun.com> http://www.genunix.org/wiki/index.php/OpenSolaris_Governance_Draft_01 I'm planning to reread the entire document, both for some standing nits and to see if I can get a closer coupling with the development process. I believe the Community section could take one or two more responsibilities, and there may be a need beyond III.4 and IV.4 for a intra-Community dispute to reach the Board. But: comments and corrections, please. - 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 Mon Jun 26 11:01:35 2006 From: sch at eng.sun.com (Stephen Hahn) Date: Mon, 26 Jun 2006 11:01:35 -0700 Subject: [cab-discuss] Identified contributors so far Message-ID: <20060626180135.GA117329@eng.sun.com> Below please find the initial contributors identified by the responding subset of the communities. I'll be pinging the leads once again, but comments on this batch are invited. (Some of the communities identified people not registered with the site; these records--there were about 5 total--were not included.) - Stephen ---- approach contributor anay significant contributor to NWAM project discussions approach contributor anupcs significant contributor to NWAM project discussions approach contributor darrenm significant contributor to NWAM project discussions approach contributor dminer significant contributor to NWAM project discussions approach contributor bustos significant contributor to NWAM project discussions approach contributor davidjon significant contributor to NWAM project discussions approach contributor carlsonj significant contributor to NWAM project discussions approach core jbeck project leader for NWAM project discussions approach contributor kcpoon significant contributor to NWAM project discussions approach contributor lianep significant contributor to NWAM project discussions approach contributor meem significant contributor to NWAM project discussions approach contributor mph significant contributor to NWAM project discussions approach contributor okie significant contributor to NWAM project discussions approach contributor sfbiggar significant contributor to NWAM project discussions approach contributor xzh significant contributor to NWAM project discussions documentation core elowe Eric Lowe has provided conversion tools and engineering expertise to help provide books as open source documentation core sweber Sue Weber has defined the roadmap and worked closely with legal to determine licensing practices documentation core benr Ben Rockwood has created the wiki and source repository for our community along with defining direction of tools documentation core rheilke Rainer Heilke has provided consistently helpful feedback on writing guidelines and developed a quick start documentation core bgregg Brendan Gregg has contributed several documents and leadership on direction of the Docs community documentation contributor markb Mark Brundege developed the tool to convert Solbook to DocBook documentation contributor linnea Linnea Wickstrom has contributed feedback and suggestions on the web site design documentation contributor sbrucker Stephanie Brucker has addressed community feedback on IPFilter docs and is a leader of Quagga project documentation contributor cindys Cindy Swearingen provided the ZFS ADmin Guide as open source and is a leader of the ZFS community documentation contributor alta Alta Elstad provided the Device Driver Tutorial as open source and is a leader of the Device Driver community documentation contributor mws Mike Shapiro provided the Dynamic Tracing Guide as open source and is a leader of the DTrace community documentation contributor wesolows Keith Wesolowski contributed the OpenSolaris Developer's reference guide as open source documentation contributor frankho Frank Hoffman contributed Crashdump analysis book and aggregate of blogs about filesystem development documentation contributor gherteg Glenn Herteg contibuted How To Setup OpenSolaris with Yahoo DSL and feedback on IPFilter docs and code impl documentation contributor layne Layne Ethington contributed nfsmapid description for community review documentation contributor dlindt David Lindt contributed feedback on community direction and helps laision for docs between SDN and OpenSolaris documentation contributor mickm Michael Monaghan contributed tools and design to convert the global glossary to a wikipedia documentation contributor ginnie Ginnie Wray contributed content for the original Big Doc List and an install tech talk i18n contributor brig Brigitte contributed French localization style guide for the French group and active in the French group. i18n contributor by38662 Brian is the leader of Chinese groups. i18n contributor cerveny Martin is the Czech group leader. i18n contributor csj J\341nos is the Hugarian group leader. i18n core is Ienup is a community leader and tries to contribute in various areas and aspects of the community. i18n contributor jayaradh Jayaradha is the leader of Indic groups. i18n core laurent Laurent is the French group leader and actively maintains the French group. i18n contributor mayoral Luis is the Spanish group leader. i18n contributor rrabadan Ruben contributed Latin American keyboard layout files and other necessary changes. i18n contributor ss39446 Siva contributed Tamil UTF-8 locale to the community. i18n core thiguchi Takaaki is the Japanese group leader and actively maintains the Japanese group. i18n contributor tifeo Daniele is the Italian group leader. i18n core vinny Vinny is the Portuguese Brazil leader and actively maintains the Portuguese Brazil group. i18n core yjsong Young is a community leader and tries to contribute in various areas and aspects of the community. i18n contributor tonyn Tony is the Vietnamese group leader. i18n contributor suresh Suresh is the Malayalam group leader. immigrants core ahl Initial core contributor. immigrants core benr Presently leading community. immigrants contributor tdh Authoring and blogging about OpenSolaris and Solaris for newcomers. marketing core sarad community lead marketing core lkr healthy participator in conversations and proposals marketing core timf offers all sorts of help and input and support marketing core benr voice of community a lot for mktg ideas marketing core patrickf bi-weekly stats contributions, conversation on list marketing contributor richteer another voice of the community and willing reviewer on docs and proposals marketing contributor spp Stephen is always willing to offer input on mktg activities marketing contributor bonnie on all calls, great reviewer, helps to balance mktg with eng requirements ppc core rarebit leads SunLabs contribution and overall port effort ppc contributor kucharsk technical info provider ppc contributor yanyh source contributor, active in forum ppc core ahl original leader, was active in forum ppc contributor cjs supports Polaris Wiki, active in forum ppc contributor Shudong Zhou active in forum ppc core dclarke hosts Polaris site, original organizer, ppc core imp leads community contribution, active in forum ppc contributor kmays active in forum ppc contributor nerant source contributor, active in forum ppc contributor bochnig source contributor, active in forum ppc contributor joerg active in forum ppc contributor mwsealey active in forum ppc contributor svenl active in forum ppc contributor bbrv active in forum test core jwalker Jim leads testing and does discussions, blogs and UG meetings test core fintanr Fintan leads performance test areas and part of self-service team test core timf Tim is a big contributor: discussions, blogs and UG meetings test contributor jleser John supports opensolaris testing test contributor seanmcg performance discussions, blogs and UG meetings test contributor michaelb discussions, UG meetings test contributor robj discussion, blogs and UG meetings tools core alanbur responsible for SCM infrastructure tools contrib casper cscope-fast contribution; SCM (esp. Teamware) knowledge tools contrib comay multiple bfu contributions tools contrib danmcd multiple tools putbacks (crypto) tools core darrenm crypto tools expert tools core dduvall ON gatekeeper tools contrib dmick multiple tools contributions tools contrib dp multiple contributions tools contrib eschrock multiple tools contributions tools core garypen responsible for SCM infrastructure tools core fvdl responsible for SCM infrastructure tools contrib jg multiple tools contributions tools core johnlev multiple ctf contributions tools contrib johnz crypto tools expert tools contrib jwadams multiple tools contributions tools core kupfer responsible for current opensolaris build infrastructure tools contrib lclee multiple bfu contributions tools core meem multiple tools contributions; strong cleanliness proponent tools core mike_s long-time expert on the build tools core mjnelson onnv tech lead tools core petede Nevada assistant tech lead tools contrib rab multiple contributions tools core raf CRT advocate covering the build tools contrib richlowe bfu and build contributions tools contrib robinson multiple bfu contributions tools contrib rorth multiple contributions to tools and other areas tools core sch responsible for SCM infrastructure tools contrib semery multiple bfu contributions tools core setje newboot expert tools contrib sherrym multiple tools contributions tools contrib simmonmt part of original CTF team tools core sommerfeld multiple contributions; strong cleanliness proponent tools core stevel responsible for current opensolaris build infrastructure, SCM tools contrib szhou multiple tools contributions tools contrib tucker contribution to bfu and crypto tool handling tools core wesolows responsible for the shadow build infrastructure, gcc tools contrib willf multiple contributions to wx tools contrib girishl multiple tools contributions (sun4v support) tools core rie Developer of link-editing technology, related tools, and associated documentation. tools core ali Developer of link-editing technology, related tools, and associated documentation. usergroup core moinakg Moinak is the lead developer of the BeleniX OpenSolaris distro usergroup contributor sriramn Sriram has been a very active contributor in the BOSUG mailing list usergroup core venkytv -- Stephen Hahn, PhD Solaris Kernel Development, Sun Microsystems stephen.hahn at sun.com http://blogs.sun.com/sch/ From sch at eng.sun.com Mon Jun 26 13:42:48 2006 From: sch at eng.sun.com (Stephen Hahn) Date: Mon, 26 Jun 2006 13:42:48 -0700 Subject: [cab-discuss] Identified contributors so far In-Reply-To: <20060626180135.GA117329@eng.sun.com> References: <20060626180135.GA117329@eng.sun.com> Message-ID: <20060626204247.GA117366@eng.sun.com> * Stephen Hahn [2006-06-26 11:01]: > > Below please find the initial contributors identified by the > responding subset of the communities. I'll be pinging the leads once > again, but comments on this batch are invited. And, to clarify, I would suggest that, for those communities not responding by some deadline, either the currently identified "community leads" be recognized as Core Contributors, or the initial proposer(s) be Core Contributors and the remaining leads Contributors. We're also going to need a draft policy on how to nominate a candidate for Board elections, what a candidate must do (beyond Article VI.2) to qualify for the election, and the duration, privacy, and other attributes of the first vote. - Stephen From al at logical-approach.com Tue Jun 27 08:08:49 2006 From: al at logical-approach.com (Al Hopper) Date: Tue, 27 Jun 2006 10:08:49 -0500 (CDT) Subject: [cab-discuss] Preliminary text on 6/23 discussion topics In-Reply-To: <20060626054004.GA115763@eng.sun.com> References: <20060626054004.GA115763@eng.sun.com> Message-ID: On Sun, 25 Jun 2006, Stephen Hahn wrote: > > > http://www.genunix.org/wiki/index.php/OpenSolaris_Governance_Draft_01 > > I'm planning to reread the entire document, both for some standing > nits and to see if I can get a closer coupling with the development > process. I believe the Community section could take one or two more > responsibilities, and there may be a need beyond III.4 and IV.4 for a > intra-Community dispute to reach the Board. > > But: comments and corrections, please. Thanks for your work on the document Stephen. General question on the meaning of "super majority" and "majority" as it relates to OGB business: Correct the following: A super majority is 2/3 of the OGB, which, if there are 7 standing members, would be 5. Does this require that all 7 members be present for the meeting/vote? Or can the super majority be achieved with the require quorum present - which is 5. For a "majority" vote we need 3 out of 5. Is that correct? Can OGB votes be solicited, via email (for example) if fewer than 5 OGB members are present? Nits in the current draft: 1.3 - core contributor term used before being defined VIII.2.3 The term: "promotion & demotion" is used but not explained. VIII.2.6 Something wrong with the verbage - to the point where I can't correct it. Other than these nits the document is looking better with every revision! Regards, 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 benr at cuddletech.com Tue Jun 27 11:28:00 2006 From: benr at cuddletech.com (Ben Rockwood) Date: Tue, 27 Jun 2006 11:28:00 -0700 Subject: [cab-discuss] Preliminary text on 6/23 discussion topics In-Reply-To: References: <20060626054004.GA115763@eng.sun.com> Message-ID: <44A178B0.3050608@cuddletech.com> Al Hopper wrote: > On Sun, 25 Jun 2006, Stephen Hahn wrote: > > >> http://www.genunix.org/wiki/index.php/OpenSolaris_Governance_Draft_01 >> >> I'm planning to reread the entire document, both for some standing >> nits and to see if I can get a closer coupling with the development >> process. I believe the Community section could take one or two more >> responsibilities, and there may be a need beyond III.4 and IV.4 for a >> intra-Community dispute to reach the Board. >> >> But: comments and corrections, please. >> > > Thanks for your work on the document Stephen. > > General question on the meaning of "super majority" and "majority" as it > relates to OGB business: > > Correct the following: A super majority is 2/3 of the OGB, which, if there > are 7 standing members, would be 5. Does this require that all 7 members > be present for the meeting/vote? Or can the super majority be achieved > with the require quorum present - which is 5. > > For a "majority" vote we need 3 out of 5. Is that correct? Can OGB votes > be solicited, via email (for example) if fewer than 5 OGB members are > present? > > Nits in the current draft: > > 1.3 - core contributor term used before being defined > I'm not sure this can be helped. > VIII.2.3 The term: "promotion & demotion" is used but not explained. > This is unavoidable in the current draft. What does it mean to be promoted or demoted? In the context the words "creation and termination" can also be used, but the current wording leave more leeway. This is yet another area of the constitution that requires for processes to be adopted following ratification, but these processes are delgated to the committee and therefore some flex is preferable. If you can draw up wordage to outline clearly promotion and demotion I'd love to see it. > VIII.2.6 Something wrong with the verbage - to the point where I can't > correct it. > That an incomplete statement that should have been corrected. benr > Other than these nits the document is looking better with every revision! > > Regards, > > 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 > _______________________________________________ > cab-discuss mailing list > cab-discuss at opensolaris.org > From benr at cuddletech.com Tue Jun 27 11:40:56 2006 From: benr at cuddletech.com (Ben Rockwood) Date: Tue, 27 Jun 2006 11:40:56 -0700 Subject: [cab-discuss] Current Draft Thoughts Message-ID: <44A17BB8.6050602@cuddletech.com> Following are several thoughts reguarding the draft in its current state: Old subject, but for the record, I'm opposed to the confusion that the organization name causes. For instance, "or an approved Community of the Entire Community". Its confusing. In III.3, it is said, "An Emeritus Voting Member is not eligible to stand for election to any Entire Community-wide elected position." It is stated in III.2.2 that each grant is independant, but I'm afraid the above line may need to be changed such that it is explicit, such as: "An Emeritus Voting Member, having no other current voting grants, is not eligible to stand for election to any Entire Community-wide elected position." Article IV.1 defines a callout to a yet to be created procedure. I personally dislike the dependancy on something that doesn't exist. A possible solution might be to handle it in the same way we do elsewhere in the constitution, by enumerating certain minimum requirements and then leaving open a hole for adoption of other requirements and procedures my means of resolution. That may be too specific, however. Just a thought. Within IV.2.1.3.2, core contribs are give veto power over nominations, however a majority vote is required to approve. I'm not sure veto power is really appropriate in this instance, if a vote is successful veto shouldn't be possible. The only purpose I see here is to have the ability to halt a nomination before it even comes to a vote. I made an edit to IV.2.2.1, changing "can identify its total membership" to "shall identify its total membership". This, I think, closes a potential loophole and may or may not be a minor edit. IV.2.3 allows contributors to be eligable as a liaison, I believe this to be inappropriate. The liaison should be a core contributor. I'm interested in (at a later time) exploring the "grant of operation" and how that will play into the procedures established by the dev process. The consitution seems devoid of what "grant of operation" actually means... does revoking a grant mean that the group can exist but is stripped of all meaning? (ie: becomes interest only, non functional) Or, does it mean that it may not exist within the context of the "Entire Community" at all? benr. From benr at cuddletech.com Tue Jun 27 11:40:58 2006 From: benr at cuddletech.com (Ben Rockwood) Date: Tue, 27 Jun 2006 11:40:58 -0700 Subject: [cab-discuss] Agenda Item: Tuesday Con-Call Message-ID: <44A17BBA.6050203@cuddletech.com> So that there is time to prepare, one of the agenda items in todays concall should a rundown of the consitutional checklist specified in Section 2 of the Charter. Approved Charter: http://www.genunix.org/wiki/index.php/OpenSolaris_Charter Working Constitution: http://www.genunix.org/wiki/index.php/OpenSolaris_Governance_Draft_01 benr. From fielding at gbiv.com Wed Jun 28 03:32:29 2006 From: fielding at gbiv.com (Roy T. Fielding) Date: Wed, 28 Jun 2006 03:32:29 -0700 Subject: [cab-discuss] Attempt at Draft 02 Message-ID: <7B14178A-49DF-4C0A-83CD-E193A4018E33@gbiv.com> I've only managed to make it half of the way through the constitution after 10 hours or so of work. http://www.genunix.org/wiki/index.php/ OpenSolaris_Governance_Draft_02 but it adds a lot of the details left out of the current draft and integrates some of the trailing sections that are (still) out of place at the end. Disappointing progress, but it should be enough to discuss on a telecon. I doubt that I'll be able to make any more progress on it until after 10pm or so my time, due to other events. ....Roy From webmink at sun.com Wed Jun 28 05:11:23 2006 From: webmink at sun.com (Simon Phipps) Date: Wed, 28 Jun 2006 14:11:23 +0200 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: <716D8F19-AA3D-4515-98C8-4CDB821DFFFB@sun.com> On Jun 28, 2006, at 12:32, Roy T. Fielding wrote: > I've only managed to make it half of the way through the constitution > after 10 hours or so of work. Looking good so far, great work. S. From keith.wesolowski at sun.com Wed Jun 28 08:18:16 2006 From: keith.wesolowski at sun.com (Keith M Wesolowski) Date: Wed, 28 Jun 2006 08:18:16 -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: <20060628151816.GA24300@sun.com> On Wed, Jun 28, 2006 at 03:32:29AM -0700, Roy T. Fielding wrote: > I've only managed to make it half of the way through the constitution > after 10 hours or so of work. > > http://www.genunix.org/wiki/index.php/ > OpenSolaris_Governance_Draft_02 > > but it adds a lot of the details left out of the current draft and > integrates some of the trailing sections that are (still) out of place > at the end. Disappointing progress, but it should be enough to discuss > on a telecon. Interesting changes indeed. I've posted some initial thoughts on the discussion page at http://www.genunix.org/wiki/index.php/Talk:OpenSolaris_Governance_Draft_02. -- Keith M Wesolowski "Sir, we're surrounded!" Solaris Kernel Team "Excellent; we can attack in any direction!" From sch at eng.sun.com Wed Jun 28 09:19:05 2006 From: sch at eng.sun.com (Stephen Hahn) Date: Wed, 28 Jun 2006 09:19:05 -0700 Subject: [cab-discuss] Re: [osol-discuss] Governance update. Message-ID: <20060628161905.GC141246@eng.sun.com> Jim had a couple of questions regarding Emeritus (on Draft 01). - Stephen ----- Forwarded message from James Carlson ----- Date: Tue, 27 Jun 2006 16:17:37 -0400 From: James Carlson To: Stephen Hahn Subject: Re: [osol-discuss] Governance update. Stephen Hahn writes: > Most recently, the Board has had a Working Group attempting to draw > up a Constitution; a draft is available at the genunix.org Wiki: > > http://www.genunix.org/wiki/index.php/OpenSolaris_Governance_Draft_01 One possibly silly question: is there any actual difference between a "Basic Member" and an "Emeritus Voting Member?" If there is, perhaps it could be made clearer. ----- End forwarded message ----- ----- Forwarded message from James Carlson ----- Date: Tue, 27 Jun 2006 16:42:12 -0400 Subject: Re: [osol-discuss] Governance update. Stephen Hahn writes: > > One possibly silly question: is there any actual difference between a > > "Basic Member" and an "Emeritus Voting Member?" If there is, perhaps > > it could be made clearer. > > An Emeritus Voting Member is quasi-honorary; I get the feeling it's > for folks who have left but are still on the rolls in some way. > > But I'll forward this to cab-discuss, if you don't mind. Sure, go ahead. It just seems a bit on the confusing side to have listed in the constitution if it doesn't have practical considerations. If it's just an honorary degree, I suppose that's ok, but it doesn't seem necessary. My feeling about processes and other standards is that they're complete not when there's nothing left to add, but when there's nothing left to take away. ;-} ----- End forwarded message ----- -- Stephen Hahn, PhD Solaris Kernel Development, Sun Microsystems stephen.hahn at sun.com http://blogs.sun.com/sch/ From stephen.harpster at sun.com Wed Jun 28 10:31:51 2006 From: stephen.harpster at sun.com (Stephen Harpster) Date: Wed, 28 Jun 2006 10:31:51 PDT Subject: [cab-discuss] CAB Extension Message-ID: <28158814.1151515941835.JavaMail.suncom@oss1> The CAB is scheduled to dissolve on Friday, June 30th. Normally, control would revert back to Sun, however the CAB is very close to completing the constitution which is required for an OGB election and those goals are something I want to see reached. I am therefore extending control of OpenSolaris to the CAB for another two months, keeping the existing CAB together until August 31st, 2006. I hope the CAB can get the constitution ratified by then and hold elections. This message posted from opensolaris.org From sch at eng.sun.com Wed Jun 28 10:46:16 2006 From: sch at eng.sun.com (Stephen Hahn) Date: Wed, 28 Jun 2006 10:46:16 -0700 Subject: [cab-discuss] Rolls update, 6/28 Message-ID: <20060628174616.GA141909@eng.sun.com> I've attached an updated membership rolls. This compilation includes 15 communities/groups; notable missing communities/groups are Desktop, Networking, ON, and X11. For the next round, I will add in the current core contributors/members of the absent communities/groups. According to the terms of Draft 01, the attached roll has 213 Voting Members (Contributors plus Core Contributors). According to the terms of Draft 02, the attached roll has 120 Members (Core Contributors only). - Stephen -- Stephen Hahn, PhD Solaris Kernel Development, Sun Microsystems stephen.hahn at sun.com http://blogs.sun.com/sch/ -------------- next part -------------- approach contributor anay significant contributor to NWAM project discussions approach contributor anupcs significant contributor to NWAM project discussions approach contributor bustos significant contributor to NWAM project discussions approach contributor carlsonj significant contributor to NWAM project discussions approach contributor darrenm significant contributor to NWAM project discussions approach contributor davidjon significant contributor to NWAM project discussions approach contributor dminer significant contributor to NWAM project discussions approach contributor kcpoon significant contributor to NWAM project discussions approach contributor lianep significant contributor to NWAM project discussions approach contributor meem significant contributor to NWAM project discussions approach contributor mph significant contributor to NWAM project discussions approach contributor okie significant contributor to NWAM project discussions approach contributor sfbiggar significant contributor to NWAM project discussions approach contributor xzh significant contributor to NWAM project discussions approach core jbeck project leader for NWAM project discussions brandz contributor ahl Adam Leventhal developed the BrandZ DTrace and ptrace support brandz contributor hannken Juergen Hannken-Illjes has contributed a number of bugfixes to BrandZ. brandz contributor jcm Jerri-Ann Meyer is the engineering manager for BrandZ brandz contributor kirk Kirk Wells is the program manager for BrandZ brandz core edp Ed Pilatowicz owns all the BrandZ device support brandz core kucharsk Bill Kucharski owns the BrandZ installation support, as well as everything to do with signals. brandz core nilsn Nils Nieuwejaar is the technical lead for BrandZ brandz core rab Russ Blaine owns all BrandZ work related to linking and debugging documentation contributor linnea Linnea Wickstrom has contributed feedback and suggestions on the web site design documentation contributor markb Mark Brundege developed the tool to convert Solbook to DocBook documentation contributor alta Alta Elstad provided the Device Driver Tutorial as open source and is a leader of the Device Driver community documentation contributor cindys Cindy Swearingen provided the ZFS ADmin Guide as open source and is a leader of the ZFS community documentation contributor dlindt David Lindt contributed feedback on community direction and helps laision for docs between SDN and OpenSolaris documentation contributor frankho Frank Hoffman contributed Crashdump analysis book and aggregate of blogs about filesystem development documentation contributor gherteg Glenn Herteg contibuted How To Setup OpenSolaris with Yahoo DSL and feedback on IPFilter docs and code impl documentation contributor ginnie Ginnie Wray contributed content for the original Big Doc List and an install tech talk documentation contributor layne Layne Ethington contributed nfsmapid description for community review documentation contributor mickm Michael Monaghan contributed tools and design to convert the global glossary to a wikipedia documentation contributor mws Mike Shapiro provided the Dynamic Tracing Guide as open source and is a leader of the DTrace community documentation contributor sbrucker Stephanie Brucker has addressed community feedback on IPFilter docs and is a leader of Quagga project documentation contributor wesolows Keith Wesolowski contributed the OpenSolaris Developer's reference guide as open source documentation core benr Ben Rockwood has created the wiki and source repository for our community along with defining direction of tools documentation core bgregg Brendan Gregg has contributed several documents and leadership on direction of the Docs community documentation core elowe Eric Lowe has provided conversion tools and engineering expertise to help provide books as open source documentation core rheilke Rainer Heilke has provided consistently helpful feedback on writing guidelines and developed a quick start documentation core sweber Sue Weber has defined the roadmap and worked closely with legal to determine licensing practices dtrace core ahl Initial core contributor dtrace core bgregg Initial core contributor dtrace core bmc Initial core contributor dtrace core mws Initial core contributor i18n contributor brig Brigitte contributed French localization style guide for the French group and active in the French group. i18n contributor by38662 Brian is the leader of Chinese groups. i18n contributor cerveny Martin is the Czech group leader. i18n contributor csj J\341nos is the Hugarian group leader. i18n contributor jayaradh Jayaradha is the leader of Indic groups. i18n contributor mayoral Luis is the Spanish group leader. i18n contributor rrabadan Ruben contributed Latin American keyboard layout files and other necessary changes. i18n contributor ss39446 Siva contributed Tamil UTF-8 locale to the community. i18n contributor suresh Suresh is the Malayalam group leader. i18n contributor tifeo Daniele is the Italian group leader. i18n contributor tonyn Tony is the Vietnamese group leader. i18n core is Ienup is a community leader and tries to contribute in various areas and aspects of the community. i18n core laurent Laurent is the French group leader and actively maintains the French group. i18n core thiguchi Takaaki is the Japanese group leader and actively maintains the Japanese group. i18n core vinny Vinny is the Portuguese Brazil leader and actively maintains the Portuguese Brazil group. i18n core yjsong Young is a community leader and tries to contribute in various areas and aspects of the community. immigrants contributor tdh Authoring and blogging about OpenSolaris and Solaris for newcomers. immigrants core ahl Initial core contributor. immigrants core benr Presently leading community. marketing contributor bonnie on all calls, great reviewer, helps to balance mktg with eng requirements marketing contributor richteer another voice of the community and willing reviewer on docs and proposals marketing contributor spp Stephen is always willing to offer input on mktg activities marketing core benr voice of community a lot for mktg ideas marketing core lkr healthy participator in conversations and proposals marketing core patrickf bi-weekly stats contributions, conversation on list marketing core sarad community lead marketing core timf offers all sorts of help and input and support marketing core teresag Community support and integration with other communities performance core akolb Expert in the areas of CMT, MPO, scheduling, et.al. performance core andrei Expert in the areas of CMT, MPO, scheduling, et.al. performance core barts Contributor in many areas of performance characterization and improvement. performance core dp Contributes to many areas of OpenSolaris. performance core esaxe Expert in the areas of CMT, MPO, scheduling, et.al. performance core jjc Expert in the areas of CMT, MPO, scheduling, et.al. performance core mpogue Experienced in the area of Kernel Performance. performance core rmc Contributor in many areas of performance characterization and improvement. ppc contributor Shudong Zhou active in forum ppc contributor bbrv active in forum ppc contributor bochnig source contributor, active in forum ppc contributor cjs supports Polaris Wiki, active in forum ppc contributor joerg active in forum ppc contributor kmays active in forum ppc contributor kucharsk technical info provider ppc contributor mwsealey active in forum ppc contributor nerant source contributor, active in forum ppc contributor svenl active in forum ppc contributor yanyh source contributor, active in forum ppc core ahl original leader, was active in forum ppc core dclarke hosts Polaris site, original organizer, ppc core imp leads community contribution, active in forum ppc core rarebit leads SunLabs contribution and overall port effort smf contrib arushi04 doc and help contributor smf contrib bnsmb doc contributor (FAQ) smf contrib dminer help and code contributor smf contrib fourctom code contributor smf contrib hshaw code contributor smf contrib jeanm code contributor smf contrib jkeil code contributor smf contrib kathy doc and help contributor smf contrib nico help contributor smf contrib richlowe code contributor smf contrib yannouch code contributor smf core bustos doc, help, code contributor and project lead smf core dep doc, help, code contributor and project lead smf core jwadams doc, help, and code contributor smf core lianep doc, help, and code contributor smf core sch doc, help, and code contributor test contributor jleser John supports opensolaris testing test contributor michaelb discussions, UG meetings test contributor robj discussion, blogs and UG meetings test contributor seanmcg performance discussions, blogs and UG meetings test core fintanr Fintan leads performance test areas and part of self-service team test core jwalker Jim leads testing and does discussions, blogs and UG meetings test core timf Tim is a big contributor: discussions, blogs and UG meetings tools contrib casper cscope-fast contribution; SCM (esp. Teamware) knowledge tools contrib comay multiple bfu contributions tools contrib danmcd multiple tools putbacks (crypto) tools contrib dmick multiple tools contributions tools contrib dp multiple contributions tools contrib eschrock multiple tools contributions tools contrib girishl multiple tools contributions (sun4v support) tools contrib jg multiple tools contributions tools contrib johnz crypto tools expert tools contrib jwadams multiple tools contributions tools contrib lclee multiple bfu contributions tools contrib rab multiple contributions tools contrib richlowe bfu and build contributions tools contrib robinson multiple bfu contributions tools contrib rorth multiple contributions to tools and other areas tools contrib semery multiple bfu contributions tools contrib sherrym multiple tools contributions tools contrib simmonmt part of original CTF team tools contrib szhou multiple tools contributions tools contrib tucker contribution to bfu and crypto tool handling tools contrib willf multiple contributions to wx tools core alanbur responsible for SCM infrastructure tools core darrenm crypto tools expert tools core dduvall ON gatekeeper tools core fvdl responsible for SCM infrastructure tools core garypen responsible for SCM infrastructure tools core johnlev multiple ctf contributions tools core kupfer responsible for current opensolaris build infrastructure tools core meem multiple tools contributions; strong cleanliness proponent tools core mike_s long-time expert on the build tools core mjnelson onnv tech lead tools core petede Nevada assistant tech lead tools core raf CRT advocate covering the build tools core sch responsible for SCM infrastructure tools core setje newboot expert tools core sommerfeld multiple contributions; strong cleanliness proponent tools core stevel responsible for current opensolaris build infrastructure, SCM tools core wesolows responsible for the shadow build infrastructure, gcc tools core ali Developer of link-editing technology, related tools, and associated documentation. tools core rie Developer of link-editing technology, related tools, and associated documentation. usergroup contributor sriramn Sriram has been a very active contributor in the BOSUG mailing list usergroup core a.sundar Chennai OSUG A. Sundararajan usergroup core aland Silicon Valley OSUG Alan DuBoff usergroup core alanh Sydney OSUG Alan Hargreaves usergroup core andrei Moscow OSUG Andrei Dorofeev usergroup core bubli "" Katarina Machalkova usergroup core cerveny Czech OSUG Martin Cerveny usergroup core codelion Warangal NIT OSUG Asankhaya Sharma usergroup core davemq Austin OSUG Dave Marquardt usergroup core dickson Atlanta OSUG Scott Dickson usergroup core ericb Great Lakes OSUG Eric Boutilier usergroup core fintanr Irish OSUG Fintan Ryan usergroup core flip "" Phillip "Flip" Russell usergroup core forrest "" Jun-Chao Forrest Wu usergroup core ginnie Front Rage OSUG Ginnie Wray usergroup core hsaltiel Argentina OSUG Hern?n Saltiel usergroup core imp Israel OSUG Cyril Plisko usergroup core jco Swiss OSUG Javier Conde usergroup core jonb "" Jon Bowman usergroup core jurikm "" Milan Jurik usergroup core kjelle Sweden OSUG Kjell H?gstr?m usergroup core km103805 "" Karim Mazouni usergroup core laurent French OSUG Laurent Blume usergroup core lisagab "" Lisa M. Week usergroup core lkr New England OSUG Laura Ramsey usergroup core mmman "" Martin Man usergroup core moinakg Moinak is the lead developer of the BeleniX OpenSolaris distro usergroup core mwaterl "" Moriah Waterland usergroup core mwolfe Raleigh OSUG Michael Wolfe usergroup core nino German OSUG Nenad Cimerman usergroup core ofsen Turkey OSUG Omer Faruk Sen usergroup core oliver "" Oliver Yang usergroup core pbg "" Peter Baer Galvin usergroup core pgomez1 Venezuela OSUG Pedro Gomez usergroup core samf "" Sam L. Falkner usergroup core sarad "" Sara Dornsife usergroup core sep Russia OSUG Sergei Pikalev usergroup core sqliang Singapore OSUG Seng-Quee Liang usergroup core subhash Hyderabad OSUG Subhash Singh Thakur usergroup core thiguchi Nihon Sun UG Takaaki Higuchi usergroup core ulf London OSUG Ulf Andreasson usergroup core venkytv Bangalore OSUG Venky TV usergroup core victor Beijing OSUG Di-Li Victor Hu zfs core ahrens Initial core contributor zfs core billm Initial core contributor zfs core bonwick Initial core contributor zfs core chua Initial core contributor zfs core cindys Initial core contributor zfs core dp Initial core contributor zfs core eschrock Initial core contributor zfs core goo Initial core contributor zfs core lalt Initial core contributor zfs core marks Initial core contributor zfs core maybee Initial core contributor zfs core ndellofa Initial core contributor zfs core perrin Initial core contributor zfs core tabriz Initial core contributor zones contrib mgerdts Community contributor to zones development zones contrib pcotten Technical writer for zones zones contrib richlowe Community contributor to zones development zones contrib jeffv Jeff Victor is a frequent and valuable contributor to the zones community zones core allan Allan McKillop is the engineering manager for zones zones core annt Ann Togasaki is the program manager for zones zones core comay David Comay is the technical lead for zones zones core dp Dan Price is a senior engineer working on zones zones core gjelinek Jerry Jelinek is a senior engineer working on zones zones core stevelaw Steve Lawrence is an engineer working on resource management, which has direct relationship with the zones community. From stephen.harpster at sun.com Wed Jun 28 12:28:13 2006 From: stephen.harpster at sun.com (Stephen Harpster) Date: Wed, 28 Jun 2006 12:28:13 PDT Subject: [cab-discuss] Re: CAB Extension In-Reply-To: <28158814.1151515941835.JavaMail.suncom@oss1> Message-ID: <9161309.1151522993565.JavaMail.suncom@oss1>

Keith Wesolowski was quick to point out to me that the charter doesn't permit a 2 month extension. It does, however, allow me to propose that the same group of individuals form a second initial OGB for the next 6 month term. So, consider this to be that proposal.

I would like to ask the CAB, however, to not wait 6 months to complete the constitution, and to resign once the constitution has been ratified in order to allow elections to proceed.

Is that acceptable?

This message posted from opensolaris.org From benr at cuddletech.com Wed Jun 28 13:06:37 2006 From: benr at cuddletech.com (Ben Rockwood) Date: Wed, 28 Jun 2006 13:06:37 -0700 Subject: [cab-discuss] Re: CAB Extension In-Reply-To: <9161309.1151522993565.JavaMail.suncom@oss1> References: <9161309.1151522993565.JavaMail.suncom@oss1> Message-ID: <44A2E14D.6090405@cuddletech.com> Stephen Harpster wrote: >

Keith Wesolowski was quick to point out to me that the > charter > doesn't permit a 2 month extension. It does, however, allow me to propose that the same group of individuals form a second initial OGB for the next 6 month term. So, consider this to be that proposal.

> >

I would like to ask the CAB, however, to not wait 6 months to complete the constitution, and to resign once the constitution has been ratified in order to allow elections to proceed.

> >

Is that acceptable?

> The Charter defines in Provision 8 (now altered by 10.2) that the OGB members shall loose their OGB membership following election of a replacement board. Therefore, resignations aren't necessary. The new effective date stipulated in Provision 9 should now be 31 Dec 2006. benr. From webmink at sun.com Wed Jun 28 16:26:05 2006 From: webmink at sun.com (Simon Phipps) Date: Thu, 29 Jun 2006 01:26:05 +0200 Subject: [cab-discuss] Fwd: OpenSolaris Constitution - release candidate References: <3AD27F51-0CCA-4283-BD50-628D313C49C0@sun.com> Message-ID: <8F792A16-0018-48ED-97E3-18FB1A6130F2@sun.com> I received this very helpful feedback from Ron Goldman in Sun Labs. Thanks, Ron. S. Begin forwarded message: > From: Ron Goldman > Date: June 28, 2006 02:43:11 GMT+02:00 > To: Simon Phipps > Cc: Open Source Group Core Staff , David Marr > > Subject: Re: OpenSolaris Constitution - release candidate > > On Jun 26, 2006, at 6:13 AM, Simon Phipps wrote: >> The OpenSolaris CAB will be voting on the new constitution soon - >> please can you take a look at the proposed Constitution[1] and >> tell me if it has any serious defects? > > Simon, > > Just finished reading through the current draft. What's there seems > basically ok. I have a number of questions & comments. You probably > have already discussed many of these points, so might just need to > include your conclusions or write up some supporting documents. > > Hope you find these comments useful. > > -- Ron -- > > > 1. What is the process for ratifying the constitution? I didn't see > anything about who can vote for it, nor what percentage is required > for ratification. > > 2. It seems somewhat top heavy, i.e. giving the Governing Board too > much power. For example only the board can ask for a referendum, > and that requires a majority of the board. > > 3. The purpose seems quite limited "fostering the evolution and > adoption of the OpenSolaris code base." I'd like to see more detail > on the principles that the Entire Community is to be based on. (See > http://www.java.net/principles.csp for some examples.) > > 4. I like the two subclauses about diversity, but would prefer to > see the non-code aspects spelled out more (as is done on the > OpenSolaris_Governance wiki page). Please include: documentation, > design, architecture, marketing, PR, evangelism, leadership, > project management, artwork, educational materials, etc. > > 5. Also spell out that contributions include the above list, and go > way beyond just code. > > 6. With the purpose focused on the code base I was surprised not to > see any further mention of the code base. In particular who can > modify the code base? What roles do the various communities have > with the code? > > 7. My first thought of how to foster the adoption of the > OpenSolaris code base would be via releases, yet there is no > mention of what constitutes a release, or any principles (e.g. > backwards compatible, API contracts, etc.) involved. I would guess > that at least some communities will be be defined around creating a > specific release. (E.g. microOpenSolaris for embedded systems) > > 8. Is there any initial voting membership? Is everyone currently > registered at OpenSolaris.org initially a member who can vote? > > 9. Are there any initial Communities? > > 10. IV.1.4. prohibit use of "OpenSolaris" - Why? I can see > trademark issues with Solaris, but what's the problem with using > OpenSolaris? E.g. The OpenSolaris Educational Community or the > Embedded OpenSolaris Community. Does this prohibition also apply to > names for releases? > > 11. IV.3.4. "In the event that a Community is deemed dissolved, the > Governing Board or a committee acting on its behalf will assign the > grants of Voting Member status to another community within the > Entire Community." This seems to trample on the right of each > Community to decide on who shall be a voting member within it. Why > not just provide that the voting members of the dissolved community > shall retain their voting privileges until the day following the > next Annual Election. > > 12. Why isn't there an explicit term of office for the board of > directors? Is it one year? It seems bad to have the entire > Governing Board change at the same time. A two year term of office, > with half the seats up for election in any given year seems pretty > standard. > > 13. Is it ok with the Sun Solaris team that all Board seats are > elected and that Sun does not get to appoint anyone to the Board? > (By the way, I think it's great if all seats are elected.) > > 14. How does an item get on the agenda for a Board Meeting? Can an > individual or community place an item to be discussed? Can any > Board member do so? Or does the Chair set the agenda? > > 15. re: a Functional Board: What is required to pass a resolution? > A majority vote? Consensus? Can a board member veto? Does it depend > on what is being voted on? As to failing to pass resolutions, what > does "any" mean in this context? Not able to pass a single > resolution? (I would guess this and not the following.) Not able to > pass a specific resolution at two meetings? > > 16. What is the nomination process for the Governing Board? Can any > individual make a nomination? Only voting members? Only Board > Members? And who can be nominated? Can a Basic Member be > nominated? (They can't vote, but can they run?) > > 17. Since most people will not have a clue about what '"Single > Transferable Vote", specifically using the Meek variant.' means > please include a URL to someplace that actually explains it (like > Wikipedia). > > 18. Article VII. Referenda - I disagree with the comment "The > Entire Community is not expected to need to meet physically." > There is lots of evidence that holding Community Meetings at > regular intervals is a very good thing and makes the community > healthier. I think that making it a duty of the Board of Directors > to organize a meeting of the Entire Community on a regular basis > (at least every two years) would be a good addition. Such a meeting > can be held in conjunction with another event & is for community > members to meet each other, exchanges of information, etc. It is > not for voting. > > 19. Is there any way for an individual, a group of individuals, or > a community to present a question via a Referendum? I.e. a petition > signed by 50 voting members. > > 20. For Committees is there any term for the chair or appointed > contributors? > > 21. Any rules on how committees should make decisions? Consensus? > Majority vote? > > 22. Instead of demoting/dissolving a Community, does it also make > sense to have a special Emeritus-like status for communities that > have maybe achieved their goal and are now dormant? In any event > all of the historical documents associated with the defunct > community (e.g. mailing lists) should be archived for future > reference. > > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From webmink at sun.com Wed Jun 28 16:48:40 2006 From: webmink at sun.com (Simon Phipps) Date: Thu, 29 Jun 2006 01:48:40 +0200 Subject: [cab-discuss] Re: CAB Extension In-Reply-To: <9161309.1151522993565.JavaMail.suncom@oss1> References: <9161309.1151522993565.JavaMail.suncom@oss1> Message-ID: On Jun 28, 2006, at 21:28, Stephen Harpster wrote: >

Keith Wesolowski was quick to point out to me that the > charter > doesn't permit a 2 month extension. It does, however, allow me to > propose that the same group of individuals form a second initial > OGB for the next 6 month term. So, consider this to be that > proposal.

> >

I would like to ask the CAB, however, to not wait 6 months to > complete the constitution, and to resign once the constitution has > been ratified in order to allow elections to proceed.

> >

Is that acceptable?

Yes, thank-you - the CAB voted unanimously to accept to the request to continue to serve and committed to complete the constitution, get it ratified and get OGB elections executed all on or before August 31st. We appreciate the trust being placed in us in this matter. S.