Subject: Re: Governance and responsibility
From: Rodent of Unusual Size <Ken.Coar@Golux.Com>
Date: Mon, 26 Sep 2005 16:27:04 -0400

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Ian Jackson wrote:
> 
> What's really going on here is that the OSI Board are a
> self-appointed bunch of people who reckon that they've got the moral
> authority to tell other people what to do.  You say that this is OK
> because those other people can always choose not to do as you say.

I think the typification is flawed at the outset.  AFAIK, OSI
isn't telling anyone to do anything, authoritatively or not.

> For both this reason, and because self-interest ought to suggest to 
> the OSI Board that they want to retain people's respect, it is 
> important that the OSI Board do more than pay lip service to the idea
> of open consultation and consensual, community-based decisionmaking.

Which is one reason the membership project was formed -- to figure
ot what sort of community involvement made the most sense all round.
Perhaps you've missed that, but the mailing list is open to all --
send a message to membership-discuss-subscribe@opensource.org to
join.

I *will* point out, though, that for all the community-minded
people already on the ilst (not a huge number, admittedly)
there has been essentially zero discussion, despite two separate
attempts by me to jump-start it.

> Whereas, in fact, the apparent official position of the OSI Board is 
> _opposed_ to consensual, community-based decisionmaking !  They won't
>  even pay lip service.  Board members are explicitly rejecting the 
> notion that they have any responsibility to behave - in this public, 
> governmental role - as we the people expect them to.

See above.  Also, please refrain from ascribing your opinions on
motivation as facts -- it's not very polite.

"Your representative owes you, not his industry only, but his
judgment; and he betrays instead of serving you if he sacrifices
it to your opinion." --Edmund Burke

Always presupposing that OSI believes that it represents the
community or any portion of it.  Representing the community
is an entirely different thing from representing the community's
interests (as perceived).

Who has explicitly rejected what expected by whom?  I'm not
challenging, I'm asking for citations.

> The 
> clear and repeated denial of the corresponding responsibility to have
> open (participatory, not just consultative) processes is outrageous.

What, then, is the process of licence approval as seen on this
list for the last few years?  It is not participatory?
- --
#ken	P-)}

Ken Coar, Sanagendamgagwedweinini  http://Ken.Coar.Org/
Author, developer, opinionist      http://Apache-Server.Com/

"Millennium hand and shrimp!"
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.4 (MingW32)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iQCVAwUBQzhZmJrNPMCpn3XdAQISnAQAsS+g9ZTZ/E7THXsFYDdtkqt7hd3UVzme
teFw+Eiq5KjLdyydztRonpFDyI2WhoBBgzkdf5HDS/rVOr9l/YkvOlsdmtQpLojl
ey8Qdl5plPDxiGWV6X/x4JnDTmcvDw1B3nNdIfKmPWLpopJZfvlcOKVQ5H8pz0u2
s/xpqJJC5WA=
=q0ya
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----