OpenJDK Community Bylaws and Governing Board

Mark Wielaard mark at
Tue Feb 8 09:53:24 PST 2011

Hi Mike,

Thanks for participating in the discussion.

On Sun, February 6, 2011 04:50, Mike Milinkovich wrote:
> Mark also raised the point that " It also doesn't state where this
> infrastructure comes from or who maintains it." I expect that the answer
> is Oracle. But I think that putting this level of detail into the Bylaws
> would be a mistake, as it is an execution matter not a governance rule.

I guess I wasn't very clear explaining. My point is mainly that the
governance bylaws should either explain how the community "owns" the
processes, or if the community isn't really in control over the
processes described, then it shouldn't be in the bylaws (since it
will only lead to frustration that it might be something we think
we control, but ultimately will be vetoed outside the normal

Lets give a concrete example. We are in desperate need of a better
bugtracker. What would the process be if someone volunteered to
set one up? How would "control" be delegated to this volunteer, who
gets to appoint the bug-masters, and how would the governance board
accept or reject donations for hosting and/or machines for this purpose?

If this is this a process that the community really controls, and we
can come up with a process for doing that. Then infrastructure
definitely needs to be mentioned in the bylaws. But if this isn't
something controlled by the participants, but something
dictated/controlled outside of the democratic process, then it is
better to just leave it out (or codify that this isn't up for
community participation).



More information about the gb-discuss mailing list