(In reply to comment #0)

I believe this is an unworkable requirement. All individuals capable of
fulfilling this role come complete with a context, and it is impossible to
detach them from it. Having an expectation that they well has placed the second
OGB under extreme pressure and internal conflict. 

I know of no other open source community where this requirement is in place
(although I would be pleased to be shown examples) and I believe that an
attempt to apply it is counter to the best interests of the growth of the
community since it discourages anything except spare-time hobbyists.

However, I do believe a "declaration of interests" on the part of every
candidate should be a requirement. I have filed a bug report to request a
change to this effect.

Fully agree with Simon here. Absolutely believe that each candidate should
declare their corporate affiliations or other interests related to OpenSolaris.
Seems entirely unreasonable that all candidates should be neutral, because
you're immediately discarding a high percentage of people who get paid to work
on open source.

I'm not sure that this is such a bad thing to ask members of the OGB. 

It's not saying that the member has to quit his job or the likes, just that
they must look out for the interests of the community. If the balance between
employment and community involves abstaining from contentious votes, so be it.

I like this proposal.  

We've seen several members of the current board be effected by conflict such as
internal briefings or communications.  We've also seen "power plays" by board
members in the past because of dual SMI/Board roles.  This all leads to an
ineffective board.  Solution, don't allow those individuals in the first place
and should their status change, eject them from the board.

(In reply to comment #4)
>  Solution, don't allow those individuals in the first place
> and should their status change, eject them from the board.

Is your proposal to discriminate against only Sun employees, or is there a
larger category you propose to disenfranchise?

(In reply to comment #5)
> (In reply to comment #4)
> >  Solution, don't allow those individuals in the first place
> > and should their status change, eject them from the board.
> 
> Is your proposal to discriminate against only Sun employees, or is there a
> larger category you propose to disenfranchise?

This is a gross oversimplification.  Having @sun.com as your email address is
not a disqualifier.  However, if you have the ability to make policy decisions
at Sun your in direct conflict with your role in serving the community.

Simple rule of thumb... if you can make a decision on the OGB, and then go
inside Sun and directly lobby for it to happen or approve it, your not
qualified.  No OGB member should be able to "change hats".

(In reply to comment #6)
> This is a gross oversimplification.  Having @sun.com as your email address is
> not a disqualifier.  However, if you have the ability to make policy decisions
> at Sun your in direct conflict with your role in serving the community.
> 
> Simple rule of thumb... if you can make a decision on the OGB, and then go
> inside Sun and directly lobby for it to happen or approve it, your not
> qualified.  No OGB member should be able to "change hats".

I can see you are passionate, Ben, but you've not actually answered my
(serious) question about the the practicality of this proposal. Some questions
that supporters of this change will need to answer:
* Is it your intent that this disenfranchisement should apply only to employees
of Sun or to other people in employment with other companies that benefit from
OpenSolaris? 
* What metric do you propose for determining a candidate's ineligibility? 
* At what level of seniority do you believe an ability to have influence stops?
* Whose responsibility would it be to make a determination that Board
membership is terminated and what process would they use? 
* What mechanisms for appeal do you propose? 
* Assuming it's not just Sun's employees you intend to disenfranchise, how
would you identify equivalent levels between different companies?

One of the guiding principles in establishing OpenSolaris was a "we do not
discriminate" philosophy. This principle applies to employer (we make no
distinction regardless of employer) and to employment status (we make no
distinction based on motivation for community participation, commercial or
otherwise). As I have proposed, transparency is a better solution than
McCarthyism.

(In reply to comment #5)

> Is your proposal to discriminate against only Sun employees, or is there a
> larger category you propose to disenfranchise?

I can't speak for Ben, but my intent was clear: nowhere is any particular
organisation named.  It does not matter what the nature of the outside
obligation is or who else is party to it; all that matters is that the
obligation restricts the board member's actions in ways inconsistent with the
Community's interests.  Accordingly, all I intended to require of candidates is
that they be able to state truthfully that they are free to serve *us*.  If Sun
is the only entity that prohibits its members/employees from doing so, then
only Sun employees would be banned.  I am certain that this is not the case. 
Likewise, if Sun were to permit unrestricted independent action, its employees
would be welcome to serve.

The idea that this amendment would disenfranchise anyone is absurd.  These
individuals have /already/ been disenfranchised, and not by us.  The
OpenSolaris Community has no right to prevent anyone from entering into lawful
outside agreements, but it has a duty to protect itself from the harm that
could result if those agreements are permitted to affect its governance.

(In reply to comment #6)

> Simple rule of thumb... if you can make a decision on the OGB, and then go
> inside Sun and directly lobby for it to happen or approve it, your not
> qualified.  No OGB member should be able to "change hats".

Ben, you and I seem to be talking about different things.  My point is that you
MUST be allowed to "change hats" and that while wearing your OGB hat you must
have complete freedom to act as an OGB member without regard for whatever other
hats you have in your closet.  That's all.  It has nothing to do with what
other hats you have or what level of authority you have somewhere else while
wearing one of them.  Why should anyone care about that?

(In reply to comment #8)
> (In reply to comment #5)
> 
> > Is your proposal to discriminate against only Sun employees, or is there a
> > larger category you propose to disenfranchise?
> 
> I can't speak for Ben, but my intent was clear: nowhere is any particular
> organisation named.  It does not matter what the nature of the outside
> obligation is or who else is party to it; all that matters is that the
> obligation restricts the board member's actions in ways inconsistent with the
> Community's interests.  Accordingly, all I intended to require of candidates is
> that they be able to state truthfully that they are free to serve *us*.  If Sun
> is the only entity that prohibits its members/employees from doing so, then
> only Sun employees would be banned.  I am certain that this is not the case. 
> Likewise, if Sun were to permit unrestricted independent action, its employees
> would be welcome to serve.
> 
> The idea that this amendment would disenfranchise anyone is absurd.  These
> individuals have /already/ been disenfranchised, and not by us.  The
> OpenSolaris Community has no right to prevent anyone from entering into lawful
> outside agreements, but it has a duty to protect itself from the harm that
> could result if those agreements are permitted to affect its governance.

Keith: Regardless of the philosophical merits of your proposal, I suggest the
issues are practical. How would you handle the questions in comment 7? Are they
the wrong questions, and if so what is the practical implementation of your
proposal?  Right now I'd suggest closing the bug as insufficiently documented
to address.

(In reply to comment #10)

> Keith: Regardless of the philosophical merits of your proposal, I suggest the
> issues are practical. How would you handle the questions in comment 7? Are they
> the wrong questions, and if so what is the practical implementation of your
> proposal?  Right now I'd suggest closing the bug as insufficiently documented
> to address.

* Is it your intent that this disenfranchisement should apply only to employees
of Sun or to other people in employment with other companies that benefit from
OpenSolaris? 

I've already made this clear.  Employment is not the only possible relationship
leading to conflict, and my proposal is intended to be wholly neutral.

* What metric do you propose for determining a candidate's ineligibility? 

The honour system.  If you can honestly agree to a form statement to the effect
that you are free to act in the Community's best interests without restriction,
you are eligible.  It is impossible to document the absence of an agreement
that would render one ineligible, so it is pointless to require a candidate to
do so.  I'll note that your "statement of interests" is identical in this
regard.

* At what level of seniority do you believe an ability to have influence stops?

This is irrelevant to my proposal, only to Ben's apparent interpretation of it.

* Whose responsibility would it be to make a determination that Board
membership is terminated and what process would they use? 

If a board member fails to resign when appropriate, he or she can be removed by
the Members under the existing process.

* What mechanisms for appeal do you propose? 

There is no appeal necessary in the removal case; the final decision is made by
the ultimate authority under the existing process.  In the case of a candidate,
I believe the then-current OGB should hear a challenge only if there is
documented proof offered that a candidate has lied about his or her
eligibility.  The candidate should be permitted to offer a defense.  If the OGB
unanimously agrees that the candidate is ineligible, he or she is removed from
the list.  The Members could overturn this decision by a supermajority vote
(the evidence would be public, so they could overrule an abusive OGB) at the
beginning of the same meeting during which the election takes place.  Anyone is
welcome to propose other possibilities here; I'm not going to write this
amendment in any case.  I'm just trying to get people to see that this is a
real problem for which we require a self-consistent, neutral solution.

* Assuming it's not just Sun's employees you intend to disenfranchise, how
would you identify equivalent levels between different companies?

Irrelevant to my proposal, as stated previously.

At this point, you seem to be arguing against a law banning theft on the
grounds that we can't really be sure someone isn't out there stealing despite
the ban, and that it's not always possible to establish clear title to
allegedly stolen goods.  We have rules to tell us what we are expected to do;
we have exception handling processes for circumstances in which we suspect the
rules have been broken.  Those processes are always messy and imperfect, but
that does not diminish the value of having good rules in the first place, or of
doing the best we can to enforce them.

Here are my questions, then.

* Is the basic intent of this proposal philosophically wrong?

* Is there any reason to believe processes along the essential lines I laid out
above cannot be made to work reasonably well?  I.e., is the basic intent of
this proposal impractical?

> Keith: Regardless of the philosophical merits of your proposal, I suggest the
> issues are practical. How would you handle the questions in comment 7? Are they
> the wrong questions, and if so what is the practical implementation of your
> proposal?  Right now I'd suggest closing the bug as insufficiently documented
> to address.


There is no reason to close the "bug".  Keith has an excellent proposal which I
wholly support and suggest no change to, his language is sound and provides
sufficient flexibility.

Lets be reminded, it is not our task here to judge an amendment, thats the job
of the voters.  For my part, my personal opinion on the matter is irrelevant,
there are a number of community members who would love to see this sort of
amendment and as their representative I shall support it moving to vote.  Case
closed.

benr.

(In reply to comment #12)

> There is no reason to close the "bug".  Keith has an excellent proposal which I
> wholly support and suggest no change to, his language is sound and provides
> sufficient flexibility.

On the contrary, Ben, there is still no proposed amendment for anyone to vote
on.

(In reply to comment #11)
> * What metric do you propose for determining a candidate's ineligibility? 
> 
> The honour system.  If you can honestly agree to a form statement to the effect
> that you are free to act in the Community's best interests without restriction,
> you are eligible.  It is impossible to document the absence of an agreement
> that would render one ineligible, so it is pointless to require a candidate to
> do so.  

This is my point. Maybe there is a mismatch between the subject you chose for
your "bug report" and the implementation you intend? The difficulty of having
such a sweeping statement and a vague implementation that requires everyone to
be aligned on its meaning is that it is easily manipulated by people with an
agenda to disrupt.

> I'll note that your "statement of interests" is identical in this
> regard.

Indeed. Would you consider that an adequate implementation of your suggested
design pattern? Can we merge these two items?

> * Whose responsibility would it be to make a determination that Board
> membership is terminated and what process would they use? 
> 
> If a board member fails to resign when appropriate, he or she can be removed by
> the Members under the existing process.

So you envisage something akin to the UK Parliament where MPs historically
resigned in times of embarrassment?  As I point out above, I believe that will
not prove rigorous enough for our community.


> Here are my questions, then.
> 
> * Is the basic intent of this proposal philosophically wrong?

I believe it is, yes. I believe all community members come complete with an
agenda and it is unreasonable to expect them to be detached from it
artificially. I believe the right approach is to seek transparency and
invalidate board membership when it is demonstrably absent. 

> > * Is there any reason to believe processes along the essential lines I laid out
> above cannot be made to work reasonably well?  I.e., is the basic intent of
> this proposal impractical?

Yes, I believe that attempting to dictate an acceptable motivational basis for
the OGB is doomed to failure. I believe the right approach is to have all
interests declared up front and allow the voters to select their
representatives with those clearly in mind.


With an eye on seeking an amendment to place before the members, I you and I
work together to perfect bug 554 as a solution.

(In reply to comment #11)
> (In reply to comment #10)
> Here are my questions, then.
>
> * Is the basic intent of this proposal philosophically wrong?

I believe so, yes.  It implicitly says that because of the relationship
between Sun and its ownership of both the OpenSolaris trademark and the
OpenSolaris code copyright, Sun employees are being treated differently
from any other contributer.

In effect, this prohibits /any/ Sun employee from being on the OGB:

(a)No board member may represent, or be asked, deemed, or expected to
represent, any interest other than The OpenSolaris Community's,

My employment contract with Sun says that I am expected to represent
Sun's best interests in all activities related to my job.  As
OpenSolaris is "my job", this immediately disqualifies me.

(b) Each board member is to fulfill his or her duty to the Community in
accordance with his or her own best judgment, free of outside influence
or constraints imposed by any other entity,

Again, my employment contract imposes constraints, so I am again
disqualified.

(c) Individuals party to any contract or other obligation that limits
or precludes such independence may not serve,

Beating the dead horse, I am again disqualified because my management
chain has reiterated that my employment contract obligates me to
represent Sun's best interests.

(d) Anyone party to such a contract or other obligation must so
indicate when declining a nomination, and

Look at me, I'm wearing a scarlet letter.  You can't even vote for me
because I can't even be nominated.

(e) Any board member who becomes party to such a contract or other
obligation when in office must resign as soon as practicable upon
becoming aware of the conflict.

This amendment seems hell bent on destroying whatever shreds of
community still exist...

(In reply to comment #14)

> > I'll note that your "statement of interests" is identical in this
> > regard.
> 
> Indeed. Would you consider that an adequate implementation of your suggested
> design pattern? Can we merge these two items?

No, it's not good enough because it does not protect OGB members from possible
coercion and it does not protect the OpenSolaris Community from its effects. 
Additionally, the interests purportedly represented by a board member may
change over time, either as a result of changing circumstances or by fiat from
those who control him.  Full disclosure of such a change after the election
does nothing to protect the Community.  It also does nothing to discourage
outside entities from seeking control of existing OGB members to further their
own aims.

> > If a board member fails to resign when appropriate, he or she can be removed by
> > the Members under the existing process.
> 
> So you envisage something akin to the UK Parliament where MPs historically
> resigned in times of embarrassment?  As I point out above, I believe that will
> not prove rigorous enough for our community.

No.  While the expectation is that the board member will follow the rules and
resign, as I wrote, the Members can remove an OGB member at any time and for
any reason.  Failing to resign when the constitution requires it would be a
compelling and obvious reason to use this power.  So this does not rely on the
board member acting properly.

> Yes, I believe that attempting to dictate an acceptable motivational basis for
> the OGB is doomed to failure.

Then so too is attempting to dictate an acceptable motivational basis for
employees, members, contractors, delegates, and representatives of all kinds. 
Since other entities seem to think this approach is working for them well
enough to keep using it, I have difficulty accepting your argument.

I'm closing this bug as WONTFIX because I'm not willing to waste any more time
arguing about it.

I'm reopening this because I think recent events and the OGB's inaction on them
are enough evidence that it's absolutely crucial to have a board that is not
bound by agreements to look out for the opposing party when some party and the
community collide. Particularly when that party already has huge influence on
the project.

Simply put, if you cannot look out for the community, you should not be in a
position to govern it. period.

(In reply to comment #17)
> I'm reopening this because I think recent events and the OGB's inaction on them
> are enough evidence that it's absolutely crucial to have a board that is not
> bound by agreements to look out for the opposing party when some party and the
> community collide. Particularly when that party already has huge influence on
> the project.
> 
> Simply put, if you cannot look out for the community, you should not be in a
> position to govern it. period.

Are you willing to put in the work to turn this into a workable proposal? While
I may agree with your sentiment we actually need to reach a place where there
is a concrete proposal to put before the membership.

I still propose merging with bug 554 and adding to that proposal protections to
meet Keith's objections if we can. As Keith has indicated in comment #16
there's no indication even that is possible, but as John Plocher indicates in
comment #15 this bug 553 as it stands is not practical.

Yes, I am willing to help turn this in to a viable .diff.

I disagree with your comment to merge it with 554. 554 is a cop-out that simply
states that OGB members must declare that they care first and foremost about
their employer, it does not actively prevent them from scuttling OpenSolaris
the project.

I am willing to persue this in terms that don't prevent Sun employees from
serving on the OGB ( as Plocher mentioned ), but still prohibits them from
being an effective part of the OGB when both the community and their other
interest may collide. 

That is, more than a simple vote abstention due to conflict of interest, but a
complete prohibition from taking part in any discussion any more than a non-OGB
member, a prohibition on acting as any sort of liason between the other party
and the community ( or OGB ), etc.

(In reply to comment #19)
> Yes, I am willing to help turn this in to a viable .diff.

Excellent, thank-you. I look forward to reviewing the proposals.

> I disagree with your comment to merge it with 554. 554 is a cop-out that simply
> states that OGB members must declare that they care first and foremost about
> their employer, it does not actively prevent them from scuttling OpenSolaris
> the project.

Everyone has context; presumably the reason you prefer to remain anonymous here
for example reflects upon that. My proposal is to get people to declare their
context. I work for Sun, and I am paid to act on their behalf (as every Sun
employee is). That does not mean I leave my own views or my ethics at the door,
and to imply it does is offensive. 

> 
> I am willing to persue this in terms that don't prevent Sun employees from
> serving on the OGB ( as Plocher mentioned ), but still prohibits them from
> being an effective part of the OGB when both the community and their other
> interest may collide. 

Once again, I ask if that applies to everyone? If it applies to Sun employees
only it is inequitable.

> 
> That is, more than a simple vote abstention due to conflict of interest, but a
> complete prohibition from taking part in any discussion any more than a non-OGB
> member, a prohibition on acting as any sort of liaison between the other party
> and the community ( or OGB ), etc.

I'm afraid I continue to think that goes too far, but I'll wait until I see
specific language.

(In reply to comment #20)
> 
> Everyone has context; presumably the reason you prefer to remain anonymous here
> for example reflects upon that. 

My anonymity is nothing more than a bug. Many others know the mapping of this
alias to John Sonnenschein. 

>My proposal is to get people to declare their
> context. I work for Sun, and I am paid to act on their behalf (as every Sun
> employee is). That does not mean I leave my own views or my ethics at the door,
> and to imply it does is offensive. 

I did not say that it does. But in dealings between two conflicting parties
that you have allegiance to, it is best if one avoids it altogether, for fear
of slighting one party or another. Once again, declaring that your allegiance
lies with your employer does nothing to mitigate the fact that you may be asked
to choose one side to the exclusion the other. In terms of governance, the side
that /must/ be chosen is that of the community. At all times. This is what the
governing body is charged to do. 

> > 
> > I am willing to persue this in terms that don't prevent Sun employees from
> > serving on the OGB ( as Plocher mentioned ), but still prohibits them from
> > being an effective part of the OGB when both the community and their other
> > interest may collide. 
> 
> Once again, I ask if that applies to everyone? If it applies to Sun employees
> only it is inequitable.

Absolutely. I believe I've made it quite clear that this applies to any
conflicting parties, Sun or otherwise.

> > 
> > That is, more than a simple vote abstention due to conflict of interest, but a
> > complete prohibition from taking part in any discussion any more than a non-OGB
> > member, a prohibition on acting as any sort of liaison between the other party
> > and the community ( or OGB ), etc.
> 
> I'm afraid I continue to think that goes too far, but I'll wait until I see
> specific language.

I disagree. Allowing members on the OGB to wreak havoc unchecked in favour of
their employer is what I consider to be going to far in the other direction.
This solution avoids the problem, as it does not prevent members with prior
attachments to adversarial entities from serving on the OGB, but it does
prevent them from acting on those attachments at the community's expense as a
matter of design.

(In reply to comment #21)
> My anonymity is nothing more than a bug. Many others know the mapping of this
> alias to John Sonnenschein. 

Cool. I don't. Thanks for fixing it.

> >My proposal is to get people to declare their
> > context. I work for Sun, and I am paid to act on their behalf (as every Sun
> > employee is). That does not mean I leave my own views or my ethics at the door,
> > and to imply it does is offensive. 
> 
> I did not say that it does. But in dealings between two conflicting parties
> that you have allegiance to, it is best if one avoids it altogether, for fear
> of slighting one party or another. Once again, declaring that your allegiance
> lies with your employer does nothing to mitigate the fact that you may be asked
> to choose one side to the exclusion the other. In terms of governance, the side
> that /must/ be chosen is that of the community. At all times. This is what the
> governing body is charged to do.

Not much to disagree with in that, but the proposal goes far beyond avoiding
conflicts of interest to the point of disenfranchising everyone with any
interest permanently. Moderate the language and it may be possible to find
agreement.

> 
> > > 
> > > I am willing to persue this in terms that don't prevent Sun employees from
> > > serving on the OGB ( as Plocher mentioned ), but still prohibits them from
> > > being an effective part of the OGB when both the community and their other
> > > interest may collide. 
> > 
> > Once again, I ask if that applies to everyone? If it applies to Sun employees
> > only it is inequitable.
> 
> Absolutely. I believe I've made it quite clear that this applies to any
> conflicting parties, Sun or otherwise.

I must have overlooked that in comments #3, #17 and #19.

> 
> > > 
> > > That is, more than a simple vote abstention due to conflict of interest, but a
> > > complete prohibition from taking part in any discussion any more than a non-OGB
> > > member, a prohibition on acting as any sort of liaison between the other party
> > > and the community ( or OGB ), etc.
> > 
> > I'm afraid I continue to think that goes too far, but I'll wait until I see
> > specific language.
> 
> I disagree. Allowing members on the OGB to wreak havoc unchecked in favour of
> their employer is what I consider to be going to far in the other direction.

Has that happened then? The thing that has so upset you and others appears to
relate to people who are not on the OGB (and in fact outside the community)
taking actions no-one in the community can argue with because no-one has
sufficient status to counter the actions. The proposal here in bug 553 seems to
guarantee that in similar future circumstances the same situation will recur. 

> This solution avoids the problem, as it does not prevent members with prior
> attachments to adversarial entities from serving on the OGB, but it does
> prevent them from acting on those attachments at the community's expense as a
> matter of design.

So there we have to differ. I see an open source community as a collection of
people choosing to align their self interests sufficiently to collaborate on
the code they are interested in. In that model, it's reasonable and expected
for them to bring those interests to the table. Attempting to prevent that is
harmful.

(In reply to comment #22)

> > This solution avoids the problem, as it does not prevent members with prior
> > attachments to adversarial entities from serving on the OGB, but it does
> > prevent them from acting on those attachments at the community's expense as a
> > matter of design.
> 
> So there we have to differ. I see an open source community as a collection of
> people choosing to align their self interests sufficiently to collaborate on
> the code they are interested in. In that model, it's reasonable and expected
> for them to bring those interests to the table. Attempting to prevent that is
> harmful.

I absolutely agree. We're not talking about people coming together to build
code though, we're talking about governance. And in that respect, you should
have to leave your competing self interest at the door, as you now represent
the community, not yourself.

(In reply to comment #23)
> (In reply to comment #22)
> we're talking about governance. And in that respect, you should
> have to leave your competing self interest at the door, as you now represent
> the community, not yourself.

No, I represent the whole package - myself, my employer, the people
I know in the community, the experience and history I bring to the
table, my biases and my blindspots.  If or when you vote for me,
you are voting for all those things *together*.  If you don't like
me or them, don't vote for me.  But if you do, and if I were to be
elected, I will apply all of the above in each and every discussion,
deliberation and vote that the OGB is involved in.  Anything less
would be dishonest - and ethically intolerable.

I keep coming back to the fact that this proposal completely 
disenfranchises *everyone* who may wish to participate in this 
community who is employed by *any* company or is associated with 
any enterprise that has any interest in OpenSolaris.

Al Hopper couldn't serve, because he is a decision maker in a company 
that has an interest in (and agenda for) OpenSolaris.  Neither could 
Ben Rockwood, because of his relationship with Joyent.  Jason and Roy
are influenced by their Apache Foundation's needs and assumptions. 
Erast and Joerg are influenced by the needs of their distro efforts.
Keep on going down the line, and you end up excluding everyone except
unemployed students like Martin - and I'll bet even *his* perspective 
is influenced by something :-)

This whole proposal seems vindictive and ultimately self destructive
for the community's relationship with Sun and Sun's employees, even 
if it is couched in language that tries to make it seem otherwise.

(In reply to comment #24)

I disagree that it disenfranchises anyone, it (after the compromises that I've
espoused ) simply asks that if there is a conflict between the community and
whatever party is asking you to take their side, you step aside and act as a
simple community member, rather than a governance member. 

This is not what I would call an unreasonable request to place on OGB members,
or the governance of any other community board for that matter.

(In reply to comment #25)
> (In reply to comment #24)
> if there is a conflict between the community and
> whatever party is asking you to take their side, you step aside 

The act of governing is, by definition, balancing between multiple
conflicting interests.  "The Community" isn't a single homogeneous 
entity; it is a continuum of diverse perspectives.  As such, it is
*impossible* to measure, determine or define what the "community's
side" actually is.

Take the current topic de jour - Sun's apparent changing of its mind 
between community launch and Bill's email.  What exactly *is* the 
community's position?  How do you know?  How did you measure it?

I know what your position is, I know what mine is, and I know what
a dozen other people's positions are.  Out of 600 or so core 
contributers, those vocal few aren't really representative (and 
even those few don't agree with each other).  Without a full 
membership vote, you can't know.

If you and I were on the OGB, (and for argument's sake) we found 
ourselves on opposite sides of this debate, and this proposal had 
been adopted, which of us would need to recuse ourselves?  Why? 
What if it is "your" position that is in the minority instead of
"mine"?

This sounds like a form of prior restraint - silencing an opponent
based on the presumed future position of the community.

(In reply to comment #26)

> 
> If you and I were on the OGB, (and for argument's sake) we found 
> ourselves on opposite sides of this debate, and this proposal had 
> been adopted, which of us would need to recuse ourselves?  Why? 
> What if it is "your" position that is in the minority instead of
> "mine"?

That is exactly the question right there. 

Can you reasonably and truthfully say that if you agreed with the side in
opposition to your employer, you could take that position without fear of
retribution? If in this hypothetical scenario you felt as if your contract with
your employer prevented you from taking the side opposing them, even
theoretically, you should not be involved in the debate.

(In reply to comment #27)
> (In reply to comment #26)
> Can you reasonably and truthfully say that if you agreed with the side in
> opposition to your employer, you could take that position without fear of
> retribution? 

What does the threat of retribution have to do with anything?
If I worked for a company that behaved that way, I'd be long gone.
As a senior engineer at Sun, I bet my job on my decisions every day.
I don't live in fear that someone will punish me for doing the
right thing - or learning from my failures.

There's the rub.  Your definition of the "right thing" and mine
are probably different.  Not better or worse, just different.
As a Sun employee, I see things thru a different lens than you 
do, and have different goals than you do.  That difference in
perspective is something to be cherished, not destroyed.

Nothing in leadership is conveniently black and white - ever.  I
can truthfully say that I see and understand and value /all/ of the 
various perspectives that have come up in this situation, even as 
I try to pilot a reasonable course thru the minefields.  As I do so,
the goals I have for success are not (and can not) be divorced from
my employer; if I ever got to the point where I could no longer 
represent both my and their interests while at the same time 
maintaining my own ethical integrity, then yes, I should either 
find a different job, or resign my position.

Part of good leadership is making sure such "rock and a hard place" 
conflicts don't have a chance to start, much less blossom into such 
a lose-lose situation.  This proposal pre-judges my (presumed lack 
of) integrity and provide a mechanism whereby anyone could 
theoretically silence my participation and leadership simply by 
invoking this "conflict clause"; in so doing, it almost guarantees
that these conflicts will arise AND PEOPLE LIKE ME WON'T BE ABLE
TO MAKE SURE THEY DON'T SPREAD.

I'm going to weigh in here, because I think this proposal is completely rotten.

First off, for the vast majority of people who are employed, particularly those
at Sun but not just Sun, this proposal excludes them from participating.  As
Simon says, everyone has a context.  Most large companies have an employment
contract that prohibits acting in ways that are are contrary to the company's
interest.  Even without that form of contract, *everyone* who gets a paycheck
probably should be assumed to owe at least some form of loyalty to the source
of that paycheck.

Secondly, I totally resent the anti-Sun sentiments that some in the community
seem to espouse.  "Our" community would simply not exist if not for Sun, and
without Sun's continued and active presence here, I believe it would quickly
shrivel and die.

In fact, I believe that what is *needed* is an active and real (and visible)
form of Sun representation on the board.  The idea that Sun as an entity should
have no input into the direction our community takes -- less control than
individuals who may have contributed only small bits, seems completely busted
to me.  No I'm not a  Sun shill -- though because of where I get may paycheck
you may assume me to be.

Those of you that believe that the community can exist in a world where Sun is
not an active participant need to perform a serious reality check.

Then there is the whole "something for nothing".... Sun contributes far, far
more than any other entity.  I believe that this is because the managers
believe it is in the best interests of Sun to participate in this community. 
However, in the face of continued anti-Sun sentiment, and amendments like this
one (which would prevent anyone with loyalty to Sun from participating in
governance), Sun may find that such continued participation is not in its own
best interests.  Understanding the consequences of such a finding are left as
an exercise to the reader.

All this said, yes, I do believe that there is a problem with the idea that Sun
employees can freely represent themselves.  They can't -- or at least I can't
-- based on the terms of my employment.  As a result, I'll be voting for at
least one Sun employee that I believe implicitly claims loyalty to Sun(Simon),
but I will not vote for or endorse any Sun employee who claims to be running on
his "own merits", only because I know that this isn't an accurate picture of
reality.  (Yes, I wish Sun would grant employees a blanket indemnification to
act on their own behalf.  No, I don't think that would be sufficient to meet
the terms of this "proposed" amendment.)

> This whole proposal seems vindictive and ultimately self destructive
> for the community's relationship with Sun and Sun's employees, even 
> if it is couched in language that tries to make it seem otherwise.

I agree, and to be honest, not only alienates people working for corporations,
but also hurts the opportunity for the *community* to benefit from the
experiences and viewpoints of those people. At the end of the day, if we're
really worried about the coercion of a potential employer, then the power *is
in the hands of the members* to not vote for them. I agree each candidate
should list their affiliation, but anything else seems unwise.

(In reply to comment #0)

Here's a premise that I think is indisputable:

Solaris engineers, having signed a Sun Inc. employment agreement, are
contractually obligated to certain things. A main one being to aim their
efforts largely at helping grow the company's earnings.

Given that premise, I suggest the following also seems true.

The strict independence orientation of our charter and stated values creates an
intractable conflict of interest scenario. It requires that all OGB members
/always/ prioritize independence above Sun's earnings growth. Yet at the same
time, the work of the OGB's /constituents/ (the coders) is largely (99%?) done
with Sun's earnings growth as the their primary obligation (with OpenSolaris
independence coming in a close 2nd of course).

eric: hence the motivation behind this proposal, although it seems as it stands
this proposal is untenable and goes a bit too far.

What would a better resolution be, though?

(In reply to comment #29)
> In fact, I believe that what is *needed* is an active and real (and visible)
> form of Sun representation on the board.  The idea that Sun as an entity should
> have no input into the direction our community takes -- less control than
> individuals who may have contributed only small bits, seems completely busted
> to me.  

Bingo!  

I know it may look it but this proposal and discussion is not vindictive or
angry.  I have respect for everyone here, to be clear.

Our governance follows that of ASF, and in ASF when you are acting as a board
member you leave your company at the door and work for the good of the
foundation, first and foremost.  

Our community (see "About Us") was founded on similar principles, especially
"we will be independent of Sun's business interests".  And by that rational, if
your on the board you must be able to act independent of we risk violating our
own principles.

The fact is, we are no longer the organization we were or intended (based on
the artifacts) to be.  Therefore,

We have two approaches here:

1) The board is completely independent of SMI.  Depending on community
sentiment, board members either leave their badges at the door or they simply
aren't eligible.  This is consistent with our founding principles.  Remember,
one of the tasks of the OGB is to "interface with SMI", whats the point if SMI
is represented on the board?

2) The flip side is to do the exact opposite, to require a board of 50/50
Sun/non-Sun board members with the expectation that Sun board members ARE
representatives of SMI, and not speaking as individuals but for the corporation
as it applies to OpenSolaris.


The fear in general, imho, is coercion.  Is Board Member X acting or not acting
because he/she chooses to or because a manager has directed them to?

Some board members have felt conflicted because they've recieved internal
briefings on possible roadmaps.  Thats a totally unfair position to put them
in.  Thus, we solve the problem, if they are reps of SMI they _should_ have all
the data possible, it will just be expected.

Does that help clarify the situation a bit?

benr.

(In reply to comment #33)
> (In reply to comment #29)
> > In fact, I believe that what is *needed* is an active and real (and visible)
> > form of Sun representation on the board.  The idea that Sun as an entity should
> > have no input into the direction our community takes -- less control than
> > individuals who may have contributed only small bits, seems completely busted
> > to me.  
> 
> Bingo!  
> 
> I know it may look it but this proposal and discussion is not vindictive or
> angry.  I have respect for everyone here, to be clear.

At least someone else recognizes that...

> We have two approaches here:
> 
> 1) The board is completely independent of SMI.  
> 
> 2) The flip side is to do the exact opposite, to require a board of 50/50
> Sun/non-Sun board members with the expectation that Sun board members ARE
> representatives of SMI, and not speaking as individuals but for the corporation
> as it applies to OpenSolaris.
> 
> 
> The fear in general, imho, is coercion.  Is Board Member X acting or not acting
> because he/she chooses to or because a manager has directed them to?
> 
> Some board members have felt conflicted because they've recieved internal
> briefings on possible roadmaps.  Thats a totally unfair position to put them
> in.  Thus, we solve the problem, if they are reps of SMI they _should_ have all
> the data possible, it will just be expected.


I think that that's not a bad idea, all things considered. Not sure that I
would want a pure 50/50 split, but requiring some number ( 1 or 2 ? ) of Sun
employees, unelected and installed by JAVA herself, and some number ( again, 1
or 2 ) of non-sun employees ( the rest being up for grabs either way ) might be
a not bad idea

Bizarrely enough, I actually thought we already had that restriction in the
make up of the board, but seemingly we don't. I wouldn't be opposed to seeing
something like a maximum of 3 members from any one company on the board.
Perhaps an amendment similar to the following might be possible -

6.2. Composition.

The OGB shall fix their number at the annual Members meeting. The initial
number shall be seven (7) natural persons ("OGB members") elected by the
Members. No organization, corporation or similar entity, or any affiliate
thereof, shall hold, directly or indirectly, more than 40% of the OGB member
seats, regardless of election results.                                         
                                  In the event that any election of directors
results in a single entity representing greater than 40% of the OGB members,
than the nominee representing that entity receiving the least number of votes,
shall be replaced by the nominee receiving the greatest number of votes who was
not elected to the OGB.

(In reply to comment #35)
> Bizarrely enough, I actually thought we already had that restriction in the
> make up of the board, but seemingly we don't. I wouldn't be opposed to seeing
> something like a maximum of 3 members from any one company on the board.
> Perhaps an amendment similar to the following might be possible -
> 
> 6.2. Composition.
> 
> The OGB shall fix their number at the annual Members meeting. The initial
> number shall be seven (7) natural persons ("OGB members") elected by the
> Members. No organization, corporation or similar entity, or any affiliate
> thereof, shall hold, directly or indirectly, more than 40% of the OGB member
> seats, regardless of election results.                                         
>                                   In the event that any election of directors
> results in a single entity representing greater than 40% of the OGB members,
> than the nominee representing that entity receiving the least number of votes,
> shall be replaced by the nominee receiving the greatest number of votes who was
> not elected to the OGB.

+1

I think that that is a good amendment.

(In reply to comment #33)
> (In reply to comment #29)
> > In fact, I believe that what is *needed* is an active and real (and visible)
> > form of Sun representation on the board. 

> 2) The flip side is to do the exact opposite, to require a board of 50/50
> Sun/non-Sun board members

Why all this legalism?

Why not simply state that all board members bring their own biases and
perspectives to the table, that they pre-disclose them at nomination 
acceptance time, and that the voters get to choose who will represent
them - including the style and other baggage that comes along with their
choices?

We are not ASF, and, given our relationship to Sun, we never can be.  Trying
to force an ASF governence model on our community isn't working - and IMO won't
ever work.

If the voters don't want candidates from Sun who espouse a mixture of their own
interests and Sun's, those candidates won't be elected.  On the other hand, if
they are comfortable with someone who says "I will represent Sun's party line
and not my own views", then that's who will be on the board.

Trying to devise *constitutional* rules to fix imagined future problems seems
to me to be a pointless waste of everyone's time - not to mention the extremely
negative tone it sets for the discussion:  Instead of "wow, look at what we can
do when we pool all our diverse perspectives", we have "no, no, no, no, not
you, not you, no, no, no...".  Well, I for one am saying No to this pessimistic
attitude. :-)

I note that *none* of our problems have been caused by actions of people on the
OGB acting in ways that this proposal tries to forbid, and that forcing the
makeup of the OGB to reflect a fantasy that does not match the reality that
Sun's interests impact this community much more than any other (maybe even more
than all others combined) is bound to fail.

As I said in email, it seems that the rules have changed; if so, we are better
off figuring out what the new rules are or working to change them than we are
trying to force the use of old rules that no longer apply.

(In reply to comment #35)
> Bizarrely enough, I actually thought we already had that restriction in the
> make up of the board, but seemingly we don't. I wouldn't be opposed to seeing
> something like a maximum of 3 members from any one company on the board.

@ Glynn --

Like I said earlier, OpenSolaris governance clearly faces a
conflict-of-interest scenario (a very large one in my view). However,
your proposal, like Keith's, tries to pretend we don't. Change the
ratio to 5:7 (instead of 3:7) and then at least we'd have a
coders-to-representatives ratio that wouldn't be wildly out of
alignment. And to be even more in line (agreeing with John P on this)
let the voters will decide the ratio.

@ John S. -- 

I'm still formulating my ideas about the best way forward, but clearly
OpenSolaris needs a value statement and charter that somehow reflects
an awareness (better yet, acceptance?) of the de facto (by way of
employment affiliation) motivations of the people producing the /VAST/
majority of the incoming code.

Eric

(In reply to comment #38)
> Change the
> ratio to 5:7 (instead of 3:7) and then at least we'd have...
>

I meant to say: "5 out of 7 (instead of 3 out of 7) and then at least
we'd have" ... etc.

:-/

@EricB: I don't mind the numbers so much, so long as there is at least *some*
non-Sun representation.

Really what we should be getting to is a governance board working with it's
sponsoring companies (Sun, Intel, ...) and its community proactively and in
unison, and trying to avoid formal voting on anything. I'd hope that the number
of  controversial subjects decreases over time rather than increases.</naive>

(In reply to comment #38)
> And to be even more in line (agreeing with John P on this)
> let the voters will decide the ratio.
> 

Glynn's last reply made me realize I was being vague here, so just to be clear,
the vote I'm referring to above is specifically OGB election voting; definitely
not proposal/referendum voting in general. (In other words, the less we have of
those the better, for sure).

As of now, we're actively discussing amendments on #opensolaris-meeting -
please come and join in the discussion.