[ogb-discuss] OpenSolaris processes

[Stephen Lau]

Garrett D'Amore wrote:
> A strongly worded mandate would be better than remaining quiet on it.  
> Ultimately, the tools we need to manage code commits must be openly 
> available.  One thing OGB can do is form a task group or committee to 
> work on addressing this need if it appears that a resolution on the Sun 
> internal tool is not forthcoming. 
>
> An OGB that is completely impotent to enact or enforce anything is not 
> terribly useful, and I think it would be good for all involved if the 
> OGB became a little more proactive versus reactive.  (In other words, I 
> think we ... by that I mean myself and I believe many other members of 
> the community ... expect OGB to fill more than just a judicial role for 
> the community at large.)
>   
The charter and the constitution are seemingly at odds here.  The 
charter leaves a fairly broad view (IMHO) for what the OGB's role and 
responsibilities are, in other words: a more proactive role.  The 
constitution that the community voted into place pretty strictly defines 
the OGB's role as a reactive/judicial role, and the OGB - for better or 
for worse - has stood by that measure so far this term.

-steve

-- 
stephen lau | stevel at opensolaris.org | www.whacked.net