Talk:OGB 2008/010 OpenSolaris Constitution 2009
From Genunix
This is my first attempt at pulling together the "post-election-RC freeze constitution and charter threads" with an eye towards nailing down specific charter and draft constitution changes that could/should be made.
I believe that, with a few additions to the current draft constitution, there is no need to change the charter. These changes (detailed below) to the draft constitution should bring it into alignment with the charter: Put "open source" and "vision" into a new Preamble, add explicit responsibilities for the various roles (required by charter 2.4), add a OGB/Sun communication item (re: charter 2.5) and improve the wording in a few places to avoid potential misunderstandings.
For reference:
Charter: http://www.opensolaris.org/os/community/ogb/charter/charter.pdf
Current Constitution: http://www.opensolaris.org/os/community/ogb/governance/
Draft new constitution: http://wiki.genunix.org/wiki/index.php/OGB_2008/010_OpenSolaris_Constitution_2009
-John
Contents |
Executive summary
What is here, what is new, Why should I vote for this...
The OpenSolaris Constitution 2009 is a complete re-write of the bylaws of the community governance. So, most of the content is new. Major changes include overall tone of the document to make it more informal and more approachable and generally simplifying the entire system of governance for OpenSolaris.
The most important changes to governance specified in the document are the following:
1. Separation of annual election voting from voting on decisions within your group or collective.
This means that Core Contributors would no longer be required to vote in the annual OGB election.
2. Simplification of new group creation by using defect.opensolaris.org for voting and tracking.
This means that individuals would no longer need to solicit Core Contributors of a community group on a mailing list to request a new project or user group, they just have to file a bug.
3. Simplification of rules for conducting meetings of members and approval of ballot measures.
This means that OGB would no longer be required to adhere to The Standard Code of Parliamentary Procedure (A. Sturgis, 4th ed.) to hold the annual meeting and no longer define quorum and voting results according to this code.
Preamble
+-- JimW, Peter, BenR and others | We need a preamble or leading statement, maybe having something to do with "Purpose": and "Open Source": "All software produced by the OpenSolaris Community shall be licensed to the public free of charge under one or more open source licenses approved by the Open Source Initiative. " | The conversation so far: | AlanC says that Sun's OpenSolaris Binary Distro" isn't under an OSI license (ref: nvidia drivers et al). | Simon says for the sake of clarity it should probably be moved to the Charter so that it's clear that OpenSolaris is and will always remain open source. Sun needs to say that; there's no statement or action any OGB can make that would make it so. | BrianG suggests that the community isn't producing the distro, Sun is, and all the things the community is doing *are* open source. Having the constitution mandate that the community produced things are OSI licensed says nothing about what Sun must do with its own stuff. | ShawnW says "the constitution needs to fully establish the expectations of the community by making clear the goals and principles of the community in such a way that they create an overall direction for governance." | +--
I suggest we put something in the preamble about the community being an open source community, and that all the artifacts it produces must be open source licensed. Implied by this is the fact that the CDDL (as one of the OSI approved licenses in use by the community) explicitly allows the creation of distros that are not themselves completely open source. I would also like to find a way to address Shawn's "need a vision for the community" comments.
Charter/Constitution mismatch
+-- General Comments from BenR (http://www.archivum.info/ogb-discuss@opensolaris.org/2009-02/msg00011.html) | In regards to the whole:
- The document does not describe the rights or responsibilities of anyone or anything. (charter 2.4: The OGB shall construct and maintain a Constitution defining ... The rights and responsibilities associated with each role.)
| +--
This is a reasonable concern. Section 1.2 should be changed to add responsibilities rather than just enumerate privileges, but first, those responsibilities need to be defined. To get a discussion started:
Participants are expected to participate by registering on OS.o and subscribing/joining some set of collectives. As their participation evolves from fly-on-the-wall to tangible contribution (defined elsewhere), they become Contributors. What are Contributors expected to do? Leaders are expected to manage their collective, mentor new contributors and leaders, interact with the OGB ...(what else?)...
The Electorate (1.4) similarly needs to have its responsibilities defined. Voting in elections, preparing and discussing motions, disseminating information about their collectives, ...(what else?)...
Finally, the OGB itself and the Sun Liaison have responsibilities. Is the enumeration in 3.1 sufficient? (probably not, since there is no mention of the "rights" it does not have: The Charter (in section 6) clearly states that the OGB has no role to play in the licensing of copyrights, trademarks or patents.... We also may want to preserve the current constitution's OGB powers: "The OGB shall serve as the official liaison between the OpenSolaris Community and Sun Microsystems, Inc., and shall represent the OpenSolaris Community to external organizations. ")
+-- General Comments from BenR:
|
- The Charter states that the constitution shall describe the "intended methods of communication between the OGB and Sun"... this document does not.
| +--
The genunix wiki [Changes_Needed_To_Charter] page has this to say:
There's a place for formal communications, and Sun has established a liaison person (currently Vincent) through whom "official" statements can be made. In practice we've found that attempting to funnel all "official" communication through the OGB leads at best to delay and at worst to confrontation and the impression that "the workers " can make demands of "the management" through such a channel. A revised section 2.5 needs to describe the reality we've encountered - that all community members are free to interact with Sun as appropriate and that Sun will appoint an official liaison to the OGB. It's not up to the OGB to define that as it can't tell Sun what to do. Hence Charter not Constitution.
[We could ADD: 3.9 Sun Liaison: The interactions between the Community and Sun occur at many levels, with Sun employees acting as Participants, Contributors and Leaders across all the collectives in the community. Sun will appoint an official liaison to the OGB, who will be given "seat and voice" in OGB discussions, and who can serve as an "official voice of Sun" if required.
Simon suggested:
"On the occasions that a collective statement or communication is required by the OpenSolaris community to any individual or organisation, the OGB will make such a statement following the passing of a suitable motion by its members containing the text of the statement."]
General wording improvements
+- Comment from JimC | Since the distinction between Core and non-Core Contributor is voting, you could make it a use-it-or-lose it franchise; those not voting in (say) 2 or more consecutive elections become Contributors, and need to be re-nominated for Core Contributorship. | +--
+--Specific Comments from BenR:
|
Regarding Section 1.1:
- Projects should be defined rather as "Working groups assembled to collaborate on a distinct cause/effort." Projects may not involve code repositories or integration tools, for example docs.
- Electorate should be defined rather as "A superset of the community empowered to vote in elections." The current wording wrongly suggests the electorate governs, rather than simply elect the governors.
| Regarding 3.4.1:
- This should be entitled "OGB Dissolution", rather than Community.
| +--
Reasonable feedback, I recommend that it be incorporated (save that the Electorate is properly a subset of the larger community and not a superset that contains the entire community plus other non-community players)
+-- BenR: | Regarding Section 2.3:
- Special elections to "fill any vacancies on the board" seems to me to contradict 3.4.
| +--
I recommend that 2.3 be changed to read
- Fill any vacancies on the Board [ADD: that can't be filled automatically (see s3.4)],
3.4 should be changed to read If there are no further candidates from the prior election, or if the vacancy is due to the removal of a board member, the vacancy shall not be filled until the next [ADD: Special or Annual] Election.
+-- BenR: | Regarding 3.1:
- With respect, the section seems generic and flimsy. It ascribes no real power to the OGB. "help mediate disputes" seems an option rather than requirement... thus if a dispute arose and the involved parties rejected OGB intervention I see no reason the constitution should allow the OGB to intercede.
| Regarding 4.1:
- Again, as with 3.1, there is no word that the board can intervene, only that it can if asked. Furthermore, the resolution it provides is not binding.
| +--
I recommend that 3.1 be changed to read:
... and [DELETE: help with mediating | ADD: mediate] disputes when appropriate [ADD: (see s4)].
and 4.1:
... If a dispute can not be resolved within a group or it spreads between groups, then [DELETE: any participant may ask] the Governing Board [ADD: may choose] to mediate. The Board will consider disputes on a case-by-case basis and may decline to intervene. If the Board chooses to mediate, it will resolve the issue at its absolute discretion with no possibility of appeal. [ADD: Its resolution will be binding on all parties.]
