[ogb-discuss] Call for volunteers

[Mark Martin]

On Feb 4, 2008 1:07 PM, Sara Dornsife <Sara.Dornsife at sun.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>  Rich Teer wrote:
>  On Mon, 28 Jan 2008, Sara Dornsife wrote:
>
>  I don't think it is appropriate to put employment restrictions on this or
> any
> committee - in the same way that it would not be appropriate for a committee
> to be formed that requires Sun employment.
>
>  Ordinarily, I would agree wholeheartedly. But see my other responses
> for the rationale behind this.
>
>
>
>  I think the continued separatist-ness is exacerbating, not solving,
> problems.
>
>

Sara,

With all due respect, I would point out that the initial motion was
surely motivated by the perception that Sun (and more specifically,
Sun's marketing "folks") had undue influence and control over the
front and other pages[1].  Preventing the stacked deck of loading up a
committee that still might represent only one member's (i.e. Sun's)
interests did, at the time of the announcement, seem to directly
address that concern.  I'm speaking as a complete outsider at this
point[2], so take this view as you may, but it makes total sense to me
that to compose a body of decision makers that, at least in
appearance, would balance the needs for content control is the prudent
goal.  Specifically because the editorial committee will, in at least
my mind, wield such content power means there should be employment
restrictions in place.  If you want to relax the restriction, would
you impose a required indemnity waiver that others eluded to months
ago allowing members to serve without undue influence or threat from
their employer?

Now, I'm willing to admit that it appears that need-before-greed will
probably rule here, and composing such a balanced committee may not
have been possible.  But the intent was there, and I'm sure that alone
buys the OGB, and by proxy, Sun, some good will back -- at least it
*seemed* fair at one point.

I certainly am not the Lorax, so I do not pretend to speak for the
rest of the OGB nor Rich in this regard, but do wish to point out what
I'm sure is the public perception for the reasoning behind the
employment constraint.


Mark

[1] Over and above the fact that this entity owns the infrastructure

[2] A 3rd party developer with time on his hands and a wish to
eventually receive Contributor and possibly Core Contributor status in
one or more Communities within the decade.