[cab-discuss] CAB conf call

[Garrett D'Amore]

Gosh, as an external observer to this, I'm surprised at the amount of
discord this decision caused.  Or maybe not the decision itself, but how
the decision is reached.

It sounds to me like OGB needs some basic procedures/rules to ensure
that everyone gets a fair chance at representation, and that it is also
not hamstrung by scheduling conflicts with an individual member.

Much of this is already covered by the Constitution, but I think some
improvements can be made:

Insert the following after 5.10 (Voting)

"Matters to be brought before the membership shall be described (e-mail,
or otherwise) in summary form at  least  ten (10) days  prior to the
meeting.  An exception to this rule is permitted when it would not
otherwise be reasonably possible to provide such notice, in which case
the notice shall be provided as timely as possible.  In the event that
the notice is less than seven (7) days in advance of a meeting, any vote
pertaining to the matter, other than to defer, shall require no fewer
votes than would be required if every Member eligible to vote on the
matter were present and voted.

Ten (10) days prior to any meeting the list of matters for consideration
shall be sent to the membership."

And similarly for the OGB (by which I think the CAB should be bound),
add the following after 6.8:



"Matters to be brought before the OGB shall be described (e-mail, or
otherwise) in summary form at  least  seven (7) days  prior to the
meeting.  An exception to this rule is permitted when it would not
otherwise be reasonably possible to provide such notice, in which case
the notice shall be provided as timely as possible.  In the event that
the notice is less than seven (7) days in advance is not given, any vote
pertaining to the matter, other than to defer, shall require no fewer
than three-fourths (3/4) of the votes of the OGB membership to pass.



Essentially, the intention would be to ensure that at least a simple
majority (or 3/4, arbitrarily, for the OGB) vote of _all_ members is
required when sufficient advance notice of a matter is not provide,
without hamstringing the OGB or the membership from acting.

    -- Garrett


Eric Boutilier wrote:
> On Thu, 8 Feb 2007, Glynn Foster wrote:
>> FWIW, I respectively disagree. I'd personally *much* rather Simon being
>> available to talk to the various analysts about what Sun is up to in
>> the open
>> source world (if it wasn't already obvious) and various schmoozing
>> network
>> sessions involved.
>
> But I completely agree with you on the importance of Simon's
> role in that regard. What you said above is a bit askew of
> what I said. (i.e. a straw-man)
>
>> I'm rather surprised a decision was taken to rush this out,
>> especially if there
>> wasn't full agreement of the position of the OGB and the thread was
>> dying out.
>
> And of course that is also something on which we do not disagree.
>
> Eric
> _______________________________________________
> cab-discuss mailing list
> cab-discuss at opensolaris.org