[ogb-discuss] Community Facilitators

[Stephen Lau]

Agree.  I at least feel OpenSolaris would benefit from stronger 
leadership.  I feel the OGB taking the role of the weaker federal 
government might be a fine long-term goal; but it seems the community 
would rather the OGB be the stronger more assertive leader right now.

cheers,
steve

Nicholas Solter wrote:
> Hi folks,
>
> I've been hesitant to jump into this discussion (and the previous few on 
> the roles of the OGB), but I'd like to share my thoughts. It strikes me 
> that a couple of analogies to governance of countries, specifically the 
> United States, might give some perspective.
>
> First, OpenSolaris seems to be intended to be a confederation, with 
> independent Community Groups (states) governing themselves and a weak 
> OGB (federal government). I think much of the confusion and many of the 
> complaints about the OGB stem from a lack of understanding that this is 
> the way things are supposed to be. Many of us (myself included) seem to 
> assume at first that the OGB is supposed to be a strong federal 
> government, and is somehow derelict if it doesn't actively take on that 
> role. On the contrary, it seems that the OBG is deliberately taking a 
> "states' rights" view, and trying as hard as possible to stay out of the 
> way. This isn't an invalid way to run things, but seems to be contrary 
> to what many of us are expecting and assuming.
>
> Second, in the United States federal government there are three 
> branches. In theory (and very much in theory only, but let's not get 
> into that :-), the legislative branch writes the laws, the executive 
> branch enforces the laws, and the judicial branch interprets the laws. 
> As the "federal government" of opensolaris, the OBG seems to feel that 
> its role is primarily judicial. That is, it doesn't seem to be writing 
> new rules and regulations, nor actively ensuring the existing ones are 
> followed. Instead, it seems to see itself as an adjudicating body, which 
> will resolve disputes and answer questions that are brought to it. 
> Again, this isn't a bad approach. It's just that many of us seem to 
> expect the OGB to be more of an executive branch, actively broadcasting 
> the rules and regulations and ensuring they're followed.
>
> OGB members, do you agree or disagree with this characterization?
>
> Thanks,
> Nick
>
> Darren J Moffat wrote:
>   
>> Jim Grisanzio wrote:
>>     
>>> If you have an approved but not yet created project that no one has sent 
>>> to the OGB as per the project creation process then I'd argue that you 
>>> don't have an approved project. The process hasn't been completed. Why 
>>> is it so difficult for someone in that CG to monitor the list for 
>>> project discussions and votes, walk people through the process, and keep 
>>> track of stuff? What am I missing? I do this with Advocacy specifically 
>>> because we have a lot people in user groups around the world whose first 
>>> language is not English, and so some of this is confusing. So, I walk 
>>> everyone through it from beginning to end.
>>>       
>> Because it all takes time and someone has to learn and remember that all 
>> this needs to be done. In my opinion the OGB has done a very poor job 
>> letting the communities know what is expected of them in areas like 
>> this.  It appears to me that the OGB assumes that community leaders 
>> actively "pull" information, stuff this important (even if it is in the 
>> approved constitution) really should be "pushed" (just once is fine).
>>
>> Now that I know we need to do this I'm working to rectify things for the 
>> security community.
>>
>>     
>
>