[ogb-discuss] The OpenSolaris Constitution: (Really Rough) v2.0

[Tim Cramer]

John Beck wrote:
> Jim> Here's a start at a new Constitution...
>
> First, thanks for doing this.  I think it is quite well written for such a
> "really rough" draft.  I have some high-level feedback and some wording nits,
> both of which may partially overlap with feedback already heard from others.
>
>
> Jim> Create a new "bug" ...
>
> Wording nit: s/Create/File/
>
>
> Jim> Mailing list names should indicate purpose...
>
> Agreed.
>
> Jim> ... and have one of the following suffices:
>
> Jim>     * -dev: developer discussion
> Jim>     * -discuss: general discussion
> Jim>     * -notify: notification alias for SCM putbacks
>
> High-level: this seems like an implementation detail, whereas the Constitution
> is an architecture document.
>
> Wording nit: "putback" is (AFAIK) a Teamware-specific term, so I would
> suggest "updates" instead.
>
>
> Jim> Private mailing lists may be granted in exceptional circumstances...
>
> On the one hand, I feel that such circumstances would indeed have to be
> exceptional, as in *extremely* rare, to justify having a closed list as
> part of a community whose primary goal is openness.  On the other hand,
> given that we (the OGB) have our own private list for dealing with
> confidential matters, I don't want to be hypocritical.
>
>
> Jim> ... For each collective to which you substantially contribute...
>
> Wording nit: we seemed to have switched terms from "group" to "collective".
>
>
> Jim> ... You can reactivate your Membership up to 14 days after a 
> Jim> community wide election is announced.
>
> Jim> ... The OGB shall provide notice to the community not less than
> Jim> ten days or more than sixty days before the date of the meeting...
>
> High-level: I think having 14 days for the one and 10 days for the other
> is bad; those two values should match.  Later text (7 days for nominations
> and 7 days for public view) suggests that 14 is the better choice.
>
>
> Jim> ... OGB members can serve for three consecutive terms.
>
> Wording nit: s/for three/for up to three/
>
>
> Jim> In the event that there are no further candidates from the prior
> Jim> election, or if the vacancy is due to the removal of an OGB member,
> Jim> the vacancy shall not be filled until the next OGB election.
>
> High-level: why would the vacancy not be filled if due to removal?  There
> may be a case for this position, but it is not obvious to me.
>
>
> Jim> This Constitution may be updated or repealed by an affirmative vote of
> Jim> a majority of the Members during annual meetings
>
> High-level: only during annual meetings?  I would think a special election
> would also suffice.
>
>
> Jim> If the OGB is reduced in membership below the minimum of three members,
> Jim> Sun Microsystems shall appoint a new board.
>
> High-level: why appointment via Sun rather than a new election?  Again, I'm
> not saying this is right or wrong, just curious as to the rationale.
>
>   
Didn't realize this was in the constitution.  Currently, unless I'm 
mistaken, if someone "leaves" the board for whatever reason, the next 
person from the previous election results would take over in vote 
totals, is that correct?  Would we continue that process until we ran 
out of candidates and then hit this?  If so, a "re election" seems more 
appropriate, I'd be really surprised if we hit that case.
> -- John
>
> http://blogs.sun.com/jbeck
> _______________________________________________
> ogb-discuss mailing list
> ogb-discuss at opensolaris.org
> http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/ogb-discuss
>