[cab-discuss] CAB conf call - communication

[Roy T. Fielding]

While it is nice that there is renewed interest in OpenSolaris
governance just in time for the ratification vote and the next
OGB election, I think it would be better if folks did not try
to read too much into this one event.

No matter what the issue, we are five individuals and we do
actually respect each other quite a bit.  If Simon wants to find
out what happened at the meeting from a third-party, then he should
ask Stephen for an unbiased review -- there is no reason to assume
that we intended any disrespect just because four of us decided
to take action.

 From my perspective, there have been times when Sun marketing
has moved in a certain direction without properly consulting
the CAB/OGB.  To the extent that they are talking about gray areas
or newly released projects, that's fine.  But, when they start
talking about strategic directions for OpenSolaris (not Solaris),
and justify it by tossing chum onto a public forum and then
saying the subscription list *is* the community, it pretty much
says to the world that the Core Contributor election process
is a sham.

That *will* piss me off, since we just finished a long process
of defining how we want the community to make decisions.  I think
Sun wants that document to be in effect, which is why Sun ratified
it, but I don't think everyone has figured out the appropriate
protocols yet on how to apply OpenSolaris governance in real life.
I don't expect that to happen right away, but we do need to act
when things get out of hand.

On Feb 8, 2007, at 2:50 PM, Keith M Wesolowski wrote:
> In its place, with the force of a grant of independent powers in the
> form of the charter, we have the OGB.  For a variety of reasons, the
> Initial OGBs have lacked legitimacy in that they have been appointed
> rather than elected.  That too will soon change.  But in all other
> ways, the OGB we have today is no different from the one we will have
> after elections.  Its chartered job is to govern.  Not to advise, not
> to lobby.  It is not a lower house and its decisions are, generally,
> not subject to review by Sun or anyone else who is not a voting
> member.  The decisions of the OGB as they relate to the OpenSolaris
> community are binding.

Somewhat binding, but, more importantly, it is our *responsibility*
now to act. There is no one else, at least not until we get the
voting mechanism ready and capable of handling initiatives.  Sun
has given us this responsibility.

> Sun, by virtue of copyright ownership, is free to grant additional
> licenses to OpenSolaris code under whatever terms it sees fit.  That
> does not mean such a decision need be accepted or adopted by the
> OpenSolaris community, nor does it invalidate or revoke existing
> licenses.  In such a scenario, the OGB - presumably with popular
> mandate - could in effect create a license-based fork of exactly the
> type described in the position paper.  But that fork would in fact be
> the main fork, by virtue of the OGB's position of leadership.

Whoa, whoa, whoa.  Anyone could create a fork of the code, but that
would split the community who happens to work for Sun from the
community at large.  Nobody wants that.

Our decision wasn't about securing power or fear of Sun making
a decision by fiat.  I think it was about process and place, and
specifically a realization that a campaign was being conducted on
one of *our* mailing lists in a way that was inconsistent with *our*
governance responsibility and demonstrably harmful to the
productivity of those few people still subscribed to that list.
I lost two days of work to that discussion alone, and that was just
spent reading the archives and writing one response.

If the same question had been raised on cab-discuss and then
presented in a way that could be reasonably considered by the real
OpenSolaris community, then we might have even used it as a test
poll for the voting tool.

I can only hope that this will cause more people to want to be
nominated to the OGB for the upcoming election, and maybe for
some folks inside Sun to seriously consider who they will want to
be in this position for the next misunderstanding.  I won't be here,
and I know others will pass on being nominated as well, so it
will be important for the real leaders of the community to step up
and take control of their own project's well-being.

....Roy