OpenSolaris Election: The Amendments
Posted on March 13, 2008
I said I was done with OGB related posts for a bit, but I feel I need to talk about the amendments up for vote. If you don’t want to read this whole post here’s the gist: vote no on both.
Both amendments were proposed by Simon Phipps and you can read his blog entry detailing them here: OpenSolaris Polling Open. Read it, think about it. Now here’s my opinion on these two…
The first has to do with disclosure of affiliations. This is pointless. First and foremost this can be implemented as a resolution or rule rather than be placed in the Constitution. Secondly, every candidate is asked to post a bio when nominated anyway, this information should be in there. Thirdly, it doesn’t actually solve the problem its going after. Knowing that you work for Sun Microsystems isn’t useful to me as a voter… knowing that your the Executive VP who acts on behalf of SMI is. There is a big difference between Bill Franklin or Simon Phipps being on the board (both can make decisions inside of Sun) and someone like (insert random Sun employee name here) who is really no different than any other community member except that they happen to work at Sun Microsystems. The disclosure requirement doesn’t require you to outline your influence or decision making ability, just to list your affiliations. Pointless.
The second has to do with creation of amendments. It requires that all Constitutional Amendments need to be approved by a CG before going to the OGB to be placed on the next ballot. This is backwards. The only CG that should be worried about the Constitution and its upkeep is the OGB. If the Docs CG has a problem with the Constitution it shouldn’t be their job to create an amendment, thats the OGB’s job. This runs contrary to the idea that we should take the burden of governance of developers. The only real advantage to be gained is that there will be fewer amendments being put forth…. but, um, like how many are there? Two? OK, so this isn’t actually a problem. This adds language to the Constitution that doesn’t need to be there. In fact, the Constitution is intentionally open in many places so that we have wiggle room or can answer things in resolutions (think “laws”) rather than by modifying the Constitution each time.
These amendments are bloat, pure and simple, both pointless. Vote no on both!!!