OpenJDK Community Bylaws and Governing Board

Mike Milinkovich mike.milinkovich at
Tue Feb 8 14:10:22 PST 2011

Well, you've stumped me. I don't whether the scenario we are operating under
is a reboot or a continuation of the previous charter. MR is probably the
best person to answer that question.

> On 8 Feb 2011, at 21:36, Mike Milinkovich wrote:
> > A theme that I've noticed in several comments is one which could be
> > summarized as "the board needs to be bigger, with a more diverse
> > representation". That is perfectly valid and actionable feedback and
> > noted it. But I would also point out that it's not really a criticism of
> the
> > draft Bylaws per se, as it is certainly possible to grow the board
> > the proposed governance framework.
> This was feedback that MR and Joe received strongly in FOSDEM from the
> DevRoom. The previous interim Board ended up with seven members, and
> had a majority of non-Sun employees on it - as in fact dictated by the
> OpenJDK Charter[1], in which Sun made a public commitment to the nature of
> the governance and set the absolute minimum baseline requirements for
> governance. I'd suggest the feedback does in fact fall within scope as the
> current draft does not fulfil the Charter requirements.
> The Charter currently says:
> > The Governance Board ("GB") shall be comprised of seven natural persons.
> Three members shall be employees of Sun, and four shall be elected from
> OpenJDK Community ("the Community").
> I suggest the draft be updated to comply with the commitment Oracle
> inherited from Sun. In particular, I strongly suggest the interim Board
> respect clauses 1.3 and the spirit of clause 7.1, modify the draft to
> reflect the Charter and have the non-Charter-compliant appointees occupy
> their seats only for the purposes of conducting an election.
> Simon
> [1] - note especially the
> amendment.=

More information about the gb-discuss mailing list