From al at logical-approach.com Tue Nov 1 11:34:03 2005 From: al at logical-approach.com (Al Hopper) Date: Tue, 1 Nov 2005 13:34:03 -0600 (CST) Subject: [cab-discuss] OGB Charter v2.3 In-Reply-To: <4366EDE3.5040502@sun.com> References: <4366EDE3.5040502@sun.com> Message-ID: Is the Charter finished? The last I remember is that Jim was going to add back in two scaled down sections from the old, overly voluminous, version which would include the mission statement and a statement of the intent of the project. As is stands, there is no "meat" to version v2.3. One should be able to hand off the charter to a newly elected governing board and say: "This is your Charter. Go implement it and abide by its principles and guidelines". Can we take a vote by the CAB members on whether they think that the Charter is finished at revision v2.3? Please fill in the following and return it to the CAB Discuss list: The charter is complete and approved at rev v2.3 pending ratification by the OpenSolaris community: Cab Member Yes No Comment ----------- --- --- --------------- Al Hopper [ ] [n] No - needs meat Rich Teer [ ] [ ] Roy Fielding [ ] [ ] Casper Dik [ ] [ ] Simon Phipps [ ] [ ] Regards, Al Hopper Logical Approach Inc, Plano, TX. al at logical-approach.com Voice: 972.379.2133 Fax: 972.379.2134 Timezone: US CDT OpenSolaris.Org Community Advisory Board (CAB) Member - Apr 2005 From al at logical-approach.com Tue Nov 1 11:36:42 2005 From: al at logical-approach.com (Al Hopper) Date: Tue, 1 Nov 2005 13:36:42 -0600 (CST) Subject: [cab-discuss] OGB Charter v2.3 In-Reply-To: <43671E1C.8080301@cuddletech.com> References: <4366EDE3.5040502@sun.com> <43671E1C.8080301@cuddletech.com> Message-ID: On Mon, 31 Oct 2005, Ben Rockwood wrote: > I hesitate to even send this comment, but I'm compelled. > > Is this it? As sent, the line-for-line breakdown is as follows (not > counting blank lines): > Introduction: 3 lines > History: 24 > Values: 5 > OGB Scope: 9 > > I can't help but compare this to shaving a poodle. You shave and shave > until you realize there is nothing left. What is left seems like fluff > to me. I'm sorry, but this document doesn't say anything at all. It > breaks down like this: > > A) There was a pilot, it was great. > B) We believe in being nice and getting along > C) The OGB will stay out of the way until they want to "get involved" in > something. > > Frankly I'm unsure why "Sun approves". What is there to approve? Agreed. See my other post to CAB Discuss > I'm very very sorry to be so critical, but this charter isn't the > solution. I welcome the opinion of anyone who thinks differently and > can change my mind. Ben - you don't need to be sorry for being critical and having an opinion. And I appreciate your honest feedback. Regards, Al Hopper Logical Approach Inc, Plano, TX. al at logical-approach.com Voice: 972.379.2133 Fax: 972.379.2134 Timezone: US CDT OpenSolaris.Org Community Advisory Board (CAB) Member - Apr 2005 From rich.teer at rite-group.com Tue Nov 1 12:25:16 2005 From: rich.teer at rite-group.com (Rich Teer) Date: Tue, 01 Nov 2005 12:25:16 -0800 (PST) Subject: [cab-discuss] OGB Charter v2.3 In-Reply-To: References: <4366EDE3.5040502@sun.com> Message-ID: On Tue, 1 Nov 2005, Al Hopper wrote: > As is stands, there is no "meat" to version v2.3. One should be able to > hand off the charter to a newly elected governing board and say: "This is > your Charter. Go implement it and abide by its principles and guidelines". Agreed. > The charter is complete and approved at rev v2.3 pending ratification by > the OpenSolaris community: > > Cab Member Yes No Comment > ----------- --- --- --------------- > Al Hopper [ ] [n] No - needs meat > Rich Teer [ ] [X] Ditto Just to add to Al's comments, I think that perhaps too much has been trimmed off. -- Rich Teer, SCNA, SCSA, OpenSolaris CAB member President, Rite Online Inc. Voice: +1 (250) 979-1638 URL: http://www.rite-group.com/rich From Karyn.Ritter at Sun.COM Tue Nov 1 12:28:30 2005 From: Karyn.Ritter at Sun.COM (Karyn Ritter) Date: Tue, 01 Nov 2005 12:28:30 -0800 Subject: [cab-discuss] OGB Charter v2.3 In-Reply-To: References: <4366EDE3.5040502@sun.com> Message-ID: <4367CFEE.7050507@sun.com> What (specific) meat needs to be included? I agree that this feels more like a section of the governance documents than a standalone document, but we really struggled with what level of detail should be provided. Will most/all of the areas that were removed be covered in the Governance documents more fully? I forgot to mention that we thought the Charter shouldn't change much (if ever). I'm not sure if you all agree that this is a constraint. Thanks, Karyn Al Hopper wrote: > Is the Charter finished? > > The last I remember is that Jim was going to add back in two scaled down > sections from the old, overly voluminous, version which would include the > mission statement and a statement of the intent of the project. > > As is stands, there is no "meat" to version v2.3. One should be able to > hand off the charter to a newly elected governing board and say: "This is > your Charter. Go implement it and abide by its principles and guidelines". > > Can we take a vote by the CAB members on whether they think that the > Charter is finished at revision v2.3? Please fill in the following and > return it to the CAB Discuss list: > > The charter is complete and approved at rev v2.3 pending ratification by > the OpenSolaris community: > > Cab Member Yes No Comment > ----------- --- --- --------------- > Al Hopper [ ] [n] No - needs meat > Rich Teer [ ] [ ] > Roy Fielding [ ] [ ] > Casper Dik [ ] [ ] > Simon Phipps [ ] [ ] > > Regards, > > Al Hopper Logical Approach Inc, Plano, TX. al at logical-approach.com > Voice: 972.379.2133 Fax: 972.379.2134 Timezone: US CDT > OpenSolaris.Org Community Advisory Board (CAB) Member - Apr 2005 > _______________________________________________ > cab-discuss mailing list > cab-discuss at opensolaris.org From benr at cuddletech.com Tue Nov 1 13:03:14 2005 From: benr at cuddletech.com (Ben Rockwood) Date: Tue, 01 Nov 2005 13:03:14 -0800 Subject: [cab-discuss] OGB Charter v2.3 In-Reply-To: <4367CFEE.7050507@sun.com> References: <4366EDE3.5040502@sun.com> <4367CFEE.7050507@sun.com> Message-ID: <4367D812.5020708@cuddletech.com> Karyn Ritter wrote: > What (specific) meat needs to be included? A description of the OGB. Size of the OGB. Guidelines on intervention. Clear idea of what is and what is not within the powers of the OGB. Etc. > I agree that this feels more like a section of the governance > documents than a standalone document, but we really struggled with > what level of detail should be provided. > > Will most/all of the areas that were removed be covered in the > Governance documents more fully? If this is the case I would move that we scratch the charter entirely. I don't think any firm decision in this direction can't be made until the governance is complete... we're effectively treating them as a single doc and must therefore be voted and discussed in unison. > I forgot to mention that we thought the Charter shouldn't change much > (if ever). I'm not sure if you all agree that this is a constraint. I would agree that changing the charter should be heavily frowned upon but feel that setting it in stone would limit document to such a degree that we'd get v2.3; a useless document. What is clear in all this is that the project is still growing and in its infancy from a governance standpoint and I don't think we're going to grow out of that in the near term. Thats not to say the project isn't growing by leaps and bounds every week, I think it is, but so far I've not seen a case arise that could be used to test or judge the proposed charter and goverance ideas against. I think we need more time and in the meantime allow ourselves to be flexable. Untill the technical issues catch up with the (ugh) "political" issues I think we're going to continue to flounder. I would propose the following: 1) We prepare for the distinct possiblity that the CAB may face a 2nd election without the OGB in place. 2) We vote on both the governance and the charter at the same time although individually. They are joined documents that can not be voted on without evaluation of the other. 3) We try to determine what the current road blocks are. Are the technical? Are the political? Are the due to leadership? Are they due to community involvement? What could be done to move us forward and what is standing in the way of that? Lets attack that. I'm feeling more and more that its not the charter thats a pressing issue. I think the current focus should be on driving towards open (SCM) code avaliblity and contribution. If governance is holding that up, lets attack that. But if its technical I think focus should go there as the two directly effect eachother. Perhaps a better question, that should be answered in the charter and isn't: Should the CAB/OGB be leading and driving these issues or waiting passively untill they unfold? benr. > Thanks, > > Karyn > > Al Hopper wrote: > >> Is the Charter finished? >> >> The last I remember is that Jim was going to add back in two scaled down >> sections from the old, overly voluminous, version which would include >> the >> mission statement and a statement of the intent of the project. >> >> As is stands, there is no "meat" to version v2.3. One should be able to >> hand off the charter to a newly elected governing board and say: >> "This is >> your Charter. Go implement it and abide by its principles and >> guidelines". >> >> Can we take a vote by the CAB members on whether they think that the >> Charter is finished at revision v2.3? Please fill in the following and >> return it to the CAB Discuss list: >> >> The charter is complete and approved at rev v2.3 pending ratification by >> the OpenSolaris community: >> >> Cab Member Yes No Comment >> ----------- --- --- --------------- >> Al Hopper [ ] [n] No - needs meat >> Rich Teer [ ] [ ] >> Roy Fielding [ ] [ ] >> Casper Dik [ ] [ ] >> Simon Phipps [ ] [ ] >> >> Regards, >> >> Al Hopper Logical Approach Inc, Plano, TX. al at logical-approach.com >> Voice: 972.379.2133 Fax: 972.379.2134 Timezone: US CDT >> OpenSolaris.Org Community Advisory Board (CAB) Member - Apr 2005 >> _______________________________________________ >> cab-discuss mailing list >> cab-discuss at opensolaris.org > > _______________________________________________ > cab-discuss mailing list > cab-discuss at opensolaris.org From webmink at sun.com Tue Nov 1 13:53:31 2005 From: webmink at sun.com (Simon Phipps) Date: Tue, 01 Nov 2005 13:53:31 -0800 Subject: [cab-discuss] OGB Charter v2.3 In-Reply-To: <4367D812.5020708@cuddletech.com> References: <4366EDE3.5040502@sun.com> <4367CFEE.7050507@sun.com> <4367D812.5020708@cuddletech.com> Message-ID: We need to be clear on what the Charter and Governance are. The Charter defines the terms-of-reference of the OpenSolaris community, asserting what Sun is transferring to community governance. It is to be agreed between Sun and the non-Sun Community. The Governance will then be the detailed description of how the Community (inclusive of all members including Sun) operates withing the space created by the Charter. On Nov 1, 2005, at 13:03, Ben Rockwood wrote: > Karyn Ritter wrote: > >> What (specific) meat needs to be included? > > A description of the OGB. Size of the OGB. Guidelines on > intervention. Clear idea of what is and what is not within the > powers of the OGB. Etc. The point of the charter is to give the CAB terms of reference for the creation of the Governance. It's the transfer of title deeds from Sun to the community. Consequently I would oppose the Charter defining these things as I believe it's up to the community to define and bound the OGB, not just Sun. > >> I agree that this feels more like a section of the governance >> documents than a standalone document, but we really struggled with >> what level of detail should be provided. >> >> Will most/all of the areas that were removed be covered in the >> Governance documents more fully? > > If this is the case I would move that we scratch the charter > entirely. I don't think any firm decision in this direction can't > be made until the governance is complete... we're effectively > treating them as a single doc and must therefore be voted and > discussed in unison. Once again, the charter is the terms of reference for the CAB and community. I think it's essential to have it in place before we proceed with the Governance. > >> I forgot to mention that we thought the Charter shouldn't change >> much (if ever). I'm not sure if you all agree that this is a >> constraint. > > I would agree that changing the charter should be heavily frowned > upon but feel that setting it in stone would limit document to such > a degree that we'd get v2.3; a useless document. > What is clear in all this is that the project is still growing and > in its infancy from a governance standpoint and I don't think we're > going to grow out of that in the near term. Thats not to say the > project isn't growing by leaps and bounds every week, I think it > is, but so far I've not seen a case arise that could be used to > test or judge the proposed charter and goverance ideas against. I > think we need more time and in the meantime allow ourselves to be > flexable. > Untill the technical issues catch up with the (ugh) "political" > issues I think we're going to continue to flounder. > > I would propose the following: > > 1) We prepare for the distinct possiblity that the CAB may face a > 2nd election without the OGB in place. Undesirable but we've considered that as a possibility. > > 2) We vote on both the governance and the charter at the same time > although individually. They are joined documents that can not be > voted on without evaluation of the other. I disagree. The Charter says what Sun is giving up; the Governance says how the community is going to administer what Sun has released sole control of. I can't see how we can create a governance without a charter. > > 3) We try to determine what the current road blocks are. Are the > technical? Are the political? Are the due to leadership? Are > they due to community involvement? What could be done to move us > forward and what is standing in the way of that? Lets attack > that. I'm feeling more and more that its not the charter thats a > pressing issue. I think the current focus should be on driving > towards open (SCM) code avaliblity and contribution. If governance > is holding that up, lets attack that. But if its technical I think > focus should go there as the two directly effect eachother. > > Perhaps a better question, that should be answered in the charter > and isn't: Should the CAB/OGB be leading and driving these issues > or waiting passively untill they unfold? > > benr. > >> Thanks, >> >> Karyn >> >> Al Hopper wrote: >> >>> Is the Charter finished? >>> >>> The last I remember is that Jim was going to add back in two >>> scaled down >>> sections from the old, overly voluminous, version which would >>> include the >>> mission statement and a statement of the intent of the project. >>> >>> As is stands, there is no "meat" to version v2.3. One should be >>> able to >>> hand off the charter to a newly elected governing board and say: >>> "This is >>> your Charter. Go implement it and abide by its principles and >>> guidelines". >>> >>> Can we take a vote by the CAB members on whether they think that the >>> Charter is finished at revision v2.3? Please fill in the >>> following and >>> return it to the CAB Discuss list: >>> >>> The charter is complete and approved at rev v2.3 pending >>> ratification by >>> the OpenSolaris community: >>> >>> Cab Member Yes No Comment >>> ----------- --- --- --------------- >>> Al Hopper [ ] [n] No - needs meat >>> Rich Teer [ ] [ ] >>> Roy Fielding [ ] [ ] >>> Casper Dik [ ] [ ] >>> Simon Phipps [ ] [ ] >>> >>> Regards, >>> >>> Al Hopper Logical Approach Inc, Plano, TX. al at logical-approach.com >>> Voice: 972.379.2133 Fax: 972.379.2134 Timezone: US CDT >>> OpenSolaris.Org Community Advisory Board (CAB) Member - Apr 2005 >>> _______________________________________________ >>> cab-discuss mailing list >>> cab-discuss at opensolaris.org >> >> _______________________________________________ >> cab-discuss mailing list >> cab-discuss at opensolaris.org > > > _______________________________________________ > cab-discuss mailing list > cab-discuss at opensolaris.org _____ Simon Phipps, Chief Open Source Officer, Sun Microsystems Tel: +1 650 352 6327/USx69758 Web: www.webmink.net, AIM: webmink Current timezone: BST (UTC+1) -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From Glynn.Foster at Sun.COM Tue Nov 1 15:04:58 2005 From: Glynn.Foster at Sun.COM (Glynn Foster) Date: Wed, 02 Nov 2005 12:04:58 +1300 Subject: [cab-discuss] OGB Charter v2.3 In-Reply-To: <4367CFEE.7050507@sun.com> References: <4366EDE3.5040502@sun.com> <4367CFEE.7050507@sun.com> Message-ID: <1130886298.12171.28.camel@localhost> Hi, On Tue, 2005-11-01 at 12:28 -0800, Karyn Ritter wrote: > What (specific) meat needs to be included? I may have posted this before, but just as a comparison, take a look at the GNOME Foundation Charter - http://foundation.gnome.org/about/charter/ and associating By-Laws - http://foundation.gnome.org/about/bylaws.pdf The GNOME Foundation Charter was written by the GNOME steering committee [much like the CAB] before the Foundation Board was formed [much like the OGB]. Not entirely sure they got the charter correct at the time, and there's some chunks in that document that have been superseded by the By Laws that was written some months later. It would obviously be good to avoid that scenario as most people seem to agree. I think it does have some key sections which are already reflected in the current OpenSolaris charter - History Mission Statement Community Values & Principles Tasks of OGB >From reading the draft, I'd probably agree with Ben that it does need to be expanded out a little bit more - since it's my understanding the next OGB document is likely to be more like the By Laws which starts to detail the day-to-day processes for running the project, rather than the 'why we are here, and what do we want to achieve'. Glynn From al at logical-approach.com Tue Nov 1 16:15:44 2005 From: al at logical-approach.com (Al Hopper) Date: Tue, 1 Nov 2005 18:15:44 -0600 (CST) Subject: [cab-discuss] OGB Charter v2.3 In-Reply-To: <1130886298.12171.28.camel@localhost> References: <4366EDE3.5040502@sun.com> <4367CFEE.7050507@sun.com> <1130886298.12171.28.camel@localhost> Message-ID: On Wed, 2 Nov 2005, Glynn Foster wrote: > Hi, > > On Tue, 2005-11-01 at 12:28 -0800, Karyn Ritter wrote: > > What (specific) meat needs to be included? > > I may have posted this before, but just as a comparison, take a look at > the GNOME Foundation Charter - > > http://foundation.gnome.org/about/charter/ > > and associating By-Laws - > > http://foundation.gnome.org/about/bylaws.pdf > > The GNOME Foundation Charter was written by the GNOME steering committee > [much like the CAB] before the Foundation Board was formed [much like > the OGB]. Not entirely sure they got the charter correct at the time, > and there's some chunks in that document that have been superseded by > the By Laws that was written some months later. It would obviously be > good to avoid that scenario as most people seem to agree. > > I think it does have some key sections which are already reflected in > the current OpenSolaris charter - > > History > Mission Statement > Community Values & Principles > Tasks of OGB > > >From reading the draft, I'd probably agree with Ben that it does need to > be expanded out a little bit more - since it's my understanding the next > OGB document is likely to be more like the By Laws which starts to > detail the day-to-day processes for running the project, rather than the > 'why we are here, and what do we want to achieve'. Image that you just took the top job at the American Red Cross. They should be able to give you a copy of the Red Cross Charter and it should tell you what it is they do and what they perceive as their values and priorities in doing so. I say this without having looked for their charter BTW. Now image if you were just elected to the OGB and you were give the version 2.3 Charter. You would be pretty clueless as to what the project is and what their priorities are. Regards, Al Hopper Logical Approach Inc, Plano, TX. al at logical-approach.com Voice: 972.379.2133 Fax: 972.379.2134 Timezone: US CDT OpenSolaris.Org Community Advisory Board (CAB) Member - Apr 2005 From Teresa.Giacomini at Sun.COM Tue Nov 1 17:03:14 2005 From: Teresa.Giacomini at Sun.COM (Teresa Giacomini) Date: Tue, 01 Nov 2005 17:03:14 -0800 Subject: [cab-discuss] OGB Charter v2.3 In-Reply-To: References: <4366EDE3.5040502@sun.com> <4367CFEE.7050507@sun.com> <1130886298.12171.28.camel@localhost> Message-ID: <43681052.4000201@Sun.COM> Just wondering.... Are we confusing the charter for the OGB, and the charter for the program? Aren't they different things? T Al Hopper wrote On 11/01/05 16:15,: > On Wed, 2 Nov 2005, Glynn Foster wrote: > > >>Hi, >> >>On Tue, 2005-11-01 at 12:28 -0800, Karyn Ritter wrote: >> >>>What (specific) meat needs to be included? >> >>I may have posted this before, but just as a comparison, take a look at >>the GNOME Foundation Charter - >> >>http://foundation.gnome.org/about/charter/ >> >>and associating By-Laws - >> >>http://foundation.gnome.org/about/bylaws.pdf >> >>The GNOME Foundation Charter was written by the GNOME steering committee >>[much like the CAB] before the Foundation Board was formed [much like >>the OGB]. Not entirely sure they got the charter correct at the time, >>and there's some chunks in that document that have been superseded by >>the By Laws that was written some months later. It would obviously be >>good to avoid that scenario as most people seem to agree. >> >>I think it does have some key sections which are already reflected in >>the current OpenSolaris charter - >> >> History >> Mission Statement >> Community Values & Principles >> Tasks of OGB >> >>>From reading the draft, I'd probably agree with Ben that it does need to >>be expanded out a little bit more - since it's my understanding the next >>OGB document is likely to be more like the By Laws which starts to >>detail the day-to-day processes for running the project, rather than the >>'why we are here, and what do we want to achieve'. > > > Image that you just took the top job at the American Red Cross. They > should be able to give you a copy of the Red Cross Charter and it should > tell you what it is they do and what they perceive as their values and > priorities in doing so. I say this without having looked for their charter > BTW. > > Now image if you were just elected to the OGB and you were give the version > 2.3 Charter. You would be pretty clueless as to what the project is and > what their priorities are. > > Regards, > > Al Hopper Logical Approach Inc, Plano, TX. al at logical-approach.com > Voice: 972.379.2133 Fax: 972.379.2134 Timezone: US CDT > OpenSolaris.Org Community Advisory Board (CAB) Member - Apr 2005 > _______________________________________________ > cab-discuss mailing list > cab-discuss at opensolaris.org From Glynn.Foster at Sun.COM Tue Nov 1 18:04:02 2005 From: Glynn.Foster at Sun.COM (Glynn Foster) Date: Wed, 02 Nov 2005 15:04:02 +1300 Subject: [cab-discuss] OGB Charter v2.3 In-Reply-To: References: <4366EDE3.5040502@sun.com> <4367CFEE.7050507@sun.com> <1130886298.12171.28.camel@localhost> Message-ID: <1130897042.14283.22.camel@localhost> Hey, On Tue, 2005-11-01 at 18:15 -0600, Al Hopper wrote: > Image that you just took the top job at the American Red Cross. They > should be able to give you a copy of the Red Cross Charter and it should > tell you what it is they do and what they perceive as their values and > priorities in doing so. I say this without having looked for their charter > BTW. > > Now image if you were just elected to the OGB and you were give the version > 2.3 Charter. You would be pretty clueless as to what the project is and > what their priorities are. Yeah, you'd probably also want more of a propaganda style charter to give you the 'WOW, this is so incredibly cool, I want a bit of that' motivational warm fuzzies. Glynn From Bonnie.Corwin at Sun.COM Wed Nov 2 07:42:01 2005 From: Bonnie.Corwin at Sun.COM (Bonnie Corwin) Date: Wed, 02 Nov 2005 08:42:01 -0700 Subject: [cab-discuss] OGB Charter v2.3 In-Reply-To: References: <4366EDE3.5040502@sun.com> <4367CFEE.7050507@sun.com> <4367D812.5020708@cuddletech.com> Message-ID: <4368DE49.6090906@Sun.COM> So if I'm understanding this, the Charter: - states that there is an OpenSolaris project, - contains words about what that project is about at a very high level; - states that the management of the project is directed by the OGB and that the OGB represents the community. The detail about how the OGB will be staffed, how the OGB will operate, how the project will be managed, etc. will all be contained in governance documents. If this is what we're doing, I think the charter has to reference the governance documents. I don't really like documents referencing other documents, but in this case, it seems necessary. Because it doesn't seem to be a good idea to have a document without detail that doesn't say where the detail can be found. Bonnie Simon Phipps wrote On 11/01/05 14:53,: > We need to be clear on what the Charter and Governance are. The Charter > defines the terms-of-reference of the OpenSolaris community, asserting > what Sun is transferring to community governance. It is to be agreed > between Sun and the non-Sun Community. The Governance will then be the > detailed description of how the Community (inclusive of all members > including Sun) operates withing the space created by the Charter. > > On Nov 1, 2005, at 13:03, Ben Rockwood wrote: > >> Karyn Ritter wrote: >> >>> What (specific) meat needs to be included? >> >> >> A description of the OGB. Size of the OGB. Guidelines on >> intervention. Clear idea of what is and what is not within the powers >> of the OGB. Etc. > > > The point of the charter is to give the CAB terms of reference for the > creation of the Governance. It's the transfer of title deeds from Sun to > the community. Consequently I would oppose the Charter defining these > things as I believe it's up to the community to define and bound the > OGB, not just Sun. > >> >>> I agree that this feels more like a section of the governance >>> documents than a standalone document, but we really struggled with >>> what level of detail should be provided. >>> >>> Will most/all of the areas that were removed be covered in the >>> Governance documents more fully? >> >> >> If this is the case I would move that we scratch the charter >> entirely. I don't think any firm decision in this direction can't be >> made until the governance is complete... we're effectively treating >> them as a single doc and must therefore be voted and discussed in unison. > > > Once again, the charter is the terms of reference for the CAB and > community. I think it's essential to have it in place before we proceed > with the Governance. > >> >>> I forgot to mention that we thought the Charter shouldn't change much >>> (if ever). I'm not sure if you all agree that this is a constraint. >> >> >> I would agree that changing the charter should be heavily frowned upon >> but feel that setting it in stone would limit document to such a >> degree that we'd get v2.3; a useless document. >> What is clear in all this is that the project is still growing and in >> its infancy from a governance standpoint and I don't think we're going >> to grow out of that in the near term. Thats not to say the project >> isn't growing by leaps and bounds every week, I think it is, but so >> far I've not seen a case arise that could be used to test or judge the >> proposed charter and goverance ideas against. I think we need more >> time and in the meantime allow ourselves to be flexable. >> Untill the technical issues catch up with the (ugh) "political" issues >> I think we're going to continue to flounder. >> >> I would propose the following: >> >> 1) We prepare for the distinct possiblity that the CAB may face a 2nd >> election without the OGB in place. > > > Undesirable but we've considered that as a possibility. > >> >> 2) We vote on both the governance and the charter at the same time >> although individually. They are joined documents that can not be >> voted on without evaluation of the other. > > > I disagree. The Charter says what Sun is giving up; the Governance says > how the community is going to administer what Sun has released sole > control of. I can't see how we can create a governance without a charter. > >> >> 3) We try to determine what the current road blocks are. Are the >> technical? Are the political? Are the due to leadership? Are they >> due to community involvement? What could be done to move us forward >> and what is standing in the way of that? Lets attack that. I'm >> feeling more and more that its not the charter thats a pressing >> issue. I think the current focus should be on driving towards open >> (SCM) code avaliblity and contribution. If governance is holding that >> up, lets attack that. But if its technical I think focus should go >> there as the two directly effect eachother. > > >> >> Perhaps a better question, that should be answered in the charter and >> isn't: Should the CAB/OGB be leading and driving these issues or >> waiting passively untill they unfold? >> >> benr. >> >>> Thanks, >>> >>> Karyn >>> >>> Al Hopper wrote: >>> >>>> Is the Charter finished? >>>> >>>> The last I remember is that Jim was going to add back in two scaled down >>>> sections from the old, overly voluminous, version which would >>>> include the >>>> mission statement and a statement of the intent of the project. >>>> >>>> As is stands, there is no "meat" to version v2.3. One should be able to >>>> hand off the charter to a newly elected governing board and say: >>>> "This is >>>> your Charter. Go implement it and abide by its principles and >>>> guidelines". >>>> >>>> Can we take a vote by the CAB members on whether they think that the >>>> Charter is finished at revision v2.3? Please fill in the following and >>>> return it to the CAB Discuss list: >>>> >>>> The charter is complete and approved at rev v2.3 pending ratification by >>>> the OpenSolaris community: >>>> >>>> Cab Member Yes No Comment >>>> ----------- --- --- --------------- >>>> Al Hopper [ ] [n] No - needs meat >>>> Rich Teer [ ] [ ] >>>> Roy Fielding [ ] [ ] >>>> Casper Dik [ ] [ ] >>>> Simon Phipps [ ] [ ] >>>> >>>> Regards, >>>> >>>> Al Hopper Logical Approach Inc, Plano, TX. al at logical-approach.com >>>> >>>> Voice: 972.379.2133 Fax: 972.379.2134 Timezone: US CDT >>>> OpenSolaris.Org Community Advisory Board (CAB) Member - Apr 2005 >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> cab-discuss mailing list >>>> cab-discuss at opensolaris.org >>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> cab-discuss mailing list >>> cab-discuss at opensolaris.org >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> cab-discuss mailing list >> cab-discuss at opensolaris.org > > > > > _____ > > *Simon Phipps,* Chief Open Source Officer, Sun Microsystems > > /Tel:/ +1 650 352 6327/USx69758 /Web:/ www.webmink.net, /AIM:/ webmink > > /Current timezone: BST/ (UTC+1) > > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > _______________________________________________ > cab-discuss mailing list > cab-discuss at opensolaris.org From sch at eng.sun.com Wed Nov 2 11:17:32 2005 From: sch at eng.sun.com (Stephen Hahn) Date: Wed, 2 Nov 2005 11:17:32 -0800 Subject: [cab-discuss] OGB Charter v2.3 In-Reply-To: <4368DE49.6090906@Sun.COM> References: <4366EDE3.5040502@sun.com> <4367CFEE.7050507@sun.com> <4367D812.5020708@cuddletech.com> <4368DE49.6090906@Sun.COM> Message-ID: <20051102191732.GH176000@eng.sun.com> * Bonnie Corwin [2005-11-02 07:42]: > So if I'm understanding this, the Charter: > > - states that there is an OpenSolaris project, > - contains words about what that project is about at a very high level; > - states that the management of the project is directed by the OGB and > that the OGB represents the community. > > The detail about how the OGB will be staffed, how the OGB will operate, > how the project will be managed, etc. will all be contained in > governance documents. > > If this is what we're doing, I think the charter has to reference the > governance documents. > > I don't really like documents referencing other documents, but in this > case, it seems necessary. Because it doesn't seem to be a good idea to > have a document without detail that doesn't say where the detail can be > found. What specific aspects of the governance materials does the charter need to reference? The charter says, or is supposed to say, however dramatically, that there is a handoff from the internal authorities within Sun to the OGB. The OGB is allowed to define itself and its practices, with the initial definitions being written by the CAB. That is, the governance materials reference the charter, but the charter shouldn't need to reference the governance documents. (As a specific example that's come up earlier, I would discourage the size and composition of the board from being injected into the charter because such attributes are very likely to need to change as the community it represents grows into something more complex.) - Stephen From Bonnie.Corwin at Sun.COM Wed Nov 2 13:16:22 2005 From: Bonnie.Corwin at Sun.COM (Bonnie Corwin) Date: Wed, 02 Nov 2005 14:16:22 -0700 Subject: [cab-discuss] OGB Charter v2.3 In-Reply-To: <20051102191732.GH176000@eng.sun.com> References: <4366EDE3.5040502@sun.com> <4367CFEE.7050507@sun.com> <4367D812.5020708@cuddletech.com> <4368DE49.6090906@Sun.COM> <20051102191732.GH176000@eng.sun.com> Message-ID: <43692CA6.6050607@Sun.COM> Stephen Hahn wrote On 11/02/05 12:17,: > * Bonnie Corwin [2005-11-02 07:42]: > >>So if I'm understanding this, the Charter: >> >>- states that there is an OpenSolaris project, >>- contains words about what that project is about at a very high level; >>- states that the management of the project is directed by the OGB and >>that the OGB represents the community. >> >>The detail about how the OGB will be staffed, how the OGB will operate, >>how the project will be managed, etc. will all be contained in >>governance documents. >> >>If this is what we're doing, I think the charter has to reference the >>governance documents. >> >>I don't really like documents referencing other documents, but in this >>case, it seems necessary. Because it doesn't seem to be a good idea to >>have a document without detail that doesn't say where the detail can be >>found. > > > What specific aspects of the governance materials does the charter > need to reference? The charter says, or is supposed to say, however > dramatically, that there is a handoff from the internal authorities > within Sun to the OGB. The OGB is allowed to define itself and its > practices, with the initial definitions being written by the CAB. But the charter makes statements about the OGB and its functions: - it focuses and directs the energies of the community - it provides guidance and structure for the community - its members will honor the community's values in its activities and decisions - it consists of members elected by the community - it has the authority to get involved in all aspects of the project These statements raise questions (at least to me). But in the charter there are neither answers to the questions nor a statement about where the answers can be found. I understand the view that perhaps the detail shouldn't be in the charter. But it has to be somewhere. So I'm saying I would want to know as I'm reading this document where to find the detail. Even just a sentence at the end that says something like "Refer to the OpenSolaris Governance documents for details about project management and how the OGB functions." Bonnie > > That is, the governance materials reference the charter, but the > charter shouldn't need to reference the governance documents. > > (As a specific example that's come up earlier, I would discourage the > size and composition of the board from being injected into the charter > because such attributes are very likely to need to change as the > community it represents grows into something more complex.) From sch at eng.sun.com Wed Nov 2 13:49:59 2005 From: sch at eng.sun.com (Stephen Hahn) Date: Wed, 2 Nov 2005 13:49:59 -0800 Subject: [cab-discuss] OGB Charter v2.3 In-Reply-To: <43692CA6.6050607@Sun.COM> References: <4366EDE3.5040502@sun.com> <4367CFEE.7050507@sun.com> <4367D812.5020708@cuddletech.com> <4368DE49.6090906@Sun.COM> <20051102191732.GH176000@eng.sun.com> <43692CA6.6050607@Sun.COM> Message-ID: <20051102214959.GK176000@eng.sun.com> * Bonnie Corwin [2005-11-02 13:16]: > Stephen Hahn wrote On 11/02/05 12:17,: > > * Bonnie Corwin [2005-11-02 07:42]: > > > >>So if I'm understanding this, the Charter: > >> > >>- states that there is an OpenSolaris project, > >>- contains words about what that project is about at a very high level; > >>- states that the management of the project is directed by the OGB and > >>that the OGB represents the community. > >> > >>The detail about how the OGB will be staffed, how the OGB will operate, > >>how the project will be managed, etc. will all be contained in > >>governance documents. > >> > >>If this is what we're doing, I think the charter has to reference the > >>governance documents. > >> > >>I don't really like documents referencing other documents, but in this > >>case, it seems necessary. Because it doesn't seem to be a good idea to > >>have a document without detail that doesn't say where the detail can be > >>found. > > > > > > What specific aspects of the governance materials does the charter > > need to reference? The charter says, or is supposed to say, however > > dramatically, that there is a handoff from the internal authorities > > within Sun to the OGB. The OGB is allowed to define itself and its > > practices, with the initial definitions being written by the CAB. > > But the charter makes statements about the OGB and its functions: > > - it focuses and directs the energies of the community > - it provides guidance and structure for the community > - its members will honor the community's values in its activities and > decisions > - it consists of members elected by the community > - it has the authority to get involved in all aspects of the project > > These statements raise questions (at least to me). But in the charter > there are neither answers to the questions nor a statement about where > the answers can be found. I understand the view that perhaps the detail > shouldn't be in the charter. But it has to be somewhere. > > So I'm saying I would want to know as I'm reading this document where to > find the detail. Even just a sentence at the end that says something > like "Refer to the OpenSolaris Governance documents for details about > project management and how the OGB functions." I think one way to help the current stuckee(s) would be to share your specific questions about these five points, so that they could determine whether it is the terms describing entities, the relationships between them, or some other aspects that are giving you pause. I personally disagree with the dependent text you propose, because I think the charter must make sense independent of the OGB-developed governance, and I would hope that the repository the OGB uses to host the collection of organizing documents can provide the navigational elements you are seeking. - Stephen From keith.wesolowski at sun.com Wed Nov 2 14:59:47 2005 From: keith.wesolowski at sun.com (Keith M Wesolowski) Date: Wed, 2 Nov 2005 14:59:47 -0800 Subject: [cab-discuss] OGB Charter v2.3 In-Reply-To: <43692CA6.6050607@Sun.COM> References: <4366EDE3.5040502@sun.com> <4367CFEE.7050507@sun.com> <4367D812.5020708@cuddletech.com> <4368DE49.6090906@Sun.COM> <20051102191732.GH176000@eng.sun.com> <43692CA6.6050607@Sun.COM> Message-ID: <20051102225947.GI10105@sun.com> On Wed, Nov 02, 2005 at 02:16:22PM -0700, Bonnie Corwin wrote: > So I'm saying I would want to know as I'm reading this document where to > find the detail. Even just a sentence at the end that says something > like "Refer to the OpenSolaris Governance documents for details about > project management and how the OGB functions." I think we can and should be more concrete than a reference to another document, especially since it doesn't yet exist. Perhaps the Scope section could be reworked slightly as follows: Management of the OpenSolaris project -- including the source code and its evolution -- is under the control of the OpenSolaris community as represented by the OGB. OGB representatives are elected by members of the OpenSolaris community, which includes contributors, system administrators, users, evangelists, and marketers involved with the project. The CAB, as the originator of OpenSolaris governance strategy, shall define these and other appropriate roles, and their relationships to one another and to the OGB. The OGB may amend these definitions and specification from time to time as required to ensure adequate and proper representation of all community members. -- Keith M Wesolowski "Sir, we're surrounded!" Solaris Kernel Team "Excellent; we can attack in any direction!" From Karyn.Ritter at Sun.COM Wed Nov 2 21:15:31 2005 From: Karyn.Ritter at Sun.COM (Karyn Ritter) Date: Wed, 02 Nov 2005 21:15:31 -0800 Subject: [cab-discuss] OGB Charter v2.3 In-Reply-To: <20051102225947.GI10105@sun.com> References: <4366EDE3.5040502@sun.com> <4367CFEE.7050507@sun.com> <4367D812.5020708@cuddletech.com> <4368DE49.6090906@Sun.COM> <20051102191732.GH176000@eng.sun.com> <43692CA6.6050607@Sun.COM> <20051102225947.GI10105@sun.com> Message-ID: <43699CF3.1080805@sun.com> I know I've been pretty quiet since this discussion started, so I thought I should check in. Please keep your comments and suggestions coming. I didn't set a time-out for feedback -- and I'm not going to now -- but I am starting to make substantial changes to the document based on the comments you all have shared so far. I probably won't get out a new draft by the end of this week, but I'll get one out as soon as possible. In the meantime, thanks for the input and keep it coming. The more specific you can be in describing the issues, the better. Thanks, Karyn Keith M Wesolowski wrote: > On Wed, Nov 02, 2005 at 02:16:22PM -0700, Bonnie Corwin wrote: > > >>So I'm saying I would want to know as I'm reading this document where to >>find the detail. Even just a sentence at the end that says something >>like "Refer to the OpenSolaris Governance documents for details about >>project management and how the OGB functions." > > > I think we can and should be more concrete than a reference to another > document, especially since it doesn't yet exist. Perhaps the Scope > section could be reworked slightly as follows: > > Management of the OpenSolaris project -- including the source code and > its evolution -- is under the control of the OpenSolaris community as > represented by the OGB. OGB representatives are elected by members of > the OpenSolaris community, which includes contributors, system > administrators, users, evangelists, and marketers involved with the > project. The CAB, as the originator of OpenSolaris governance > strategy, shall define these and other appropriate roles, and their > relationships to one another and to the OGB. The OGB may amend these > definitions and specification from time to time as required to ensure > adequate and proper representation of all community members. > From al at logical-approach.com Thu Nov 3 04:07:13 2005 From: al at logical-approach.com (Al Hopper) Date: Thu, 3 Nov 2005 06:07:13 -0600 (CST) Subject: [cab-discuss] OGB Charter v2.3 In-Reply-To: <20051102214959.GK176000@eng.sun.com> References: <4366EDE3.5040502@sun.com> <4367CFEE.7050507@sun.com> <4367D812.5020708@cuddletech.com> <4368DE49.6090906@Sun.COM> <20051102191732.GH176000@eng.sun.com> <43692CA6.6050607@Sun.COM> <20051102214959.GK176000@eng.sun.com> Message-ID: On Wed, 2 Nov 2005, Stephen Hahn wrote: > * Bonnie Corwin [2005-11-02 13:16]: > > Stephen Hahn wrote On 11/02/05 12:17,: > > > * Bonnie Corwin [2005-11-02 07:42]: > > > > > >>So if I'm understanding this, the Charter: > > >> > > >>- states that there is an OpenSolaris project, > > >>- contains words about what that project is about at a very high level; > > >>- states that the management of the project is directed by the OGB and > > >>that the OGB represents the community. > > >> > > >>The detail about how the OGB will be staffed, how the OGB will operate, > > >>how the project will be managed, etc. will all be contained in > > >>governance documents. > > >> > > >>If this is what we're doing, I think the charter has to reference the > > >>governance documents. > > >> > > >>I don't really like documents referencing other documents, but in this > > >>case, it seems necessary. Because it doesn't seem to be a good idea to > > >>have a document without detail that doesn't say where the detail can be > > >>found. > > > > > > > > > What specific aspects of the governance materials does the charter > > > need to reference? The charter says, or is supposed to say, however > > > dramatically, that there is a handoff from the internal authorities > > > within Sun to the OGB. The OGB is allowed to define itself and its > > > practices, with the initial definitions being written by the CAB. > > > > But the charter makes statements about the OGB and its functions: > > > > - it focuses and directs the energies of the community > > - it provides guidance and structure for the community > > - its members will honor the community's values in its activities and > > decisions > > - it consists of members elected by the community > > - it has the authority to get involved in all aspects of the project > > > > These statements raise questions (at least to me). But in the charter > > there are neither answers to the questions nor a statement about where > > the answers can be found. I understand the view that perhaps the detail > > shouldn't be in the charter. But it has to be somewhere. > > > > So I'm saying I would want to know as I'm reading this document where to > > find the detail. Even just a sentence at the end that says something > > like "Refer to the OpenSolaris Governance documents for details about > > project management and how the OGB functions." > > I think one way to help the current stuckee(s) would be to share your > specific questions about these five points, so that they could > determine whether it is the terms describing entities, the > relationships between them, or some other aspects that are giving you > pause. > > I personally disagree with the dependent text you propose, because I > think the charter must make sense independent of the OGB-developed > governance, and I would hope that the repository the OGB uses to host > the collection of organizing documents can provide the navigational > elements you are seeking. +1 ("the charter must make sense independent of the OGB-developed governance") Regards, Al Hopper Logical Approach Inc, Plano, TX. al at logical-approach.com Voice: 972.379.2133 Fax: 972.379.2134 Timezone: US CDT OpenSolaris.Org Community Advisory Board (CAB) Member - Apr 2005 From John.Plocher at Sun.Com Thu Nov 3 10:56:06 2005 From: John.Plocher at Sun.Com (John Plocher) Date: Thu, 03 Nov 2005 10:56:06 -0800 Subject: [cab-discuss] OGB Charter v2.3 In-Reply-To: <43692CA6.6050607@Sun.COM> References: <4366EDE3.5040502@sun.com> <4367CFEE.7050507@sun.com> <4367D812.5020708@cuddletech.com> <4368DE49.6090906@Sun.COM> <20051102191732.GH176000@eng.sun.com> <43692CA6.6050607@Sun.COM> Message-ID: <436A5D46.8000805@Sun.Com> Bonnie Corwin wrote: > So I'm saying I would want to know as I'm reading this document where to > find the detail. Even just a sentence at the end that says something > like "Refer to the OpenSolaris Governance documents for details about > project management and how the OGB functions." I slightly disagree - the charter is an empowering device, not a set of procedures; sort of like "go into all the world and ..."; the specifics on how to do all that disciple making are covered elsewhere. With the charter in hand, those empowered by it get to try and make a go of it. Committees, processes, governance and all the related things come after the charter is given. Looking to Google: # A charter is a document bestowing certain rights on a town, city, university or institution. The term derives from a root word meaning "paper". en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charter # The Charter sets out the University's purpose, its distinctive character, mission, values and goals. www.vuw.ac.nz/home/glossary/ # written grant of rights by sovereign or legislature medievalwriting.50megs.com/glossary2.htm # Document recording a grant. A royal charter is distinguished from other forms of royal instrument as it has a witness list and notifies specific groups of the royal act. www.history.ac.uk/cmh/gaz/glossary.html -John From Bonnie.Corwin at Sun.COM Thu Nov 3 11:13:04 2005 From: Bonnie.Corwin at Sun.COM (Bonnie Corwin) Date: Thu, 03 Nov 2005 12:13:04 -0700 Subject: [cab-discuss] OGB Charter v2.3 In-Reply-To: <436A5D46.8000805@Sun.Com> References: <4366EDE3.5040502@sun.com> <4367CFEE.7050507@sun.com> <4367D812.5020708@cuddletech.com> <4368DE49.6090906@Sun.COM> <20051102191732.GH176000@eng.sun.com> <43692CA6.6050607@Sun.COM> <436A5D46.8000805@Sun.Com> Message-ID: <436A6140.4080803@Sun.COM> John Plocher wrote On 11/03/05 11:56,: > Bonnie Corwin wrote: > >>So I'm saying I would want to know as I'm reading this document where to >>find the detail. Even just a sentence at the end that says something >>like "Refer to the OpenSolaris Governance documents for details about >>project management and how the OGB functions." > > > I slightly disagree - the charter is an empowering device, not a > set of procedures; sort of like "go into all the world and ..."; > the specifics on how to do all that disciple making are covered > elsewhere. > > With the charter in hand, those empowered by it get to > try and make a go of it. Committees, processes, governance > and all the related things come after the charter is given. > > Looking to Google: > > # A charter is a document bestowing certain rights on a town, > city, university or institution. The term derives from a root > word meaning "paper". > en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charter > > # The Charter sets out the University's purpose, its > distinctive character, mission, values and goals. > www.vuw.ac.nz/home/glossary/ > > # written grant of rights by sovereign or legislature > medievalwriting.50megs.com/glossary2.htm > > # Document recording a grant. A royal charter is > distinguished from other forms of royal instrument > as it has a witness list and notifies specific > groups of the royal act. > www.history.ac.uk/cmh/gaz/glossary.html I'm not questioning what a charter is. I'm just pointing out that in the charter we wrote, we chose to make statements and then not provide any detail about those statements or a pointer to where to find the detail. Take the definitions above - 'bestowing certain rights' and 'written grant of rights' both imply to me that the rights would be outlined in the charter. We refer to rights the OGB will have but without any detail. Stephen asked what specific questions the five statements about the OGB raise for me: - it focuses and directs the energies of the community how? by deciding exactly what projects get worked on and who gets to work on what? - it provides guidance and structure for the community how? by defining how engineering work gets done? by literally managing work on the project? by making decisions about things like an SCM which will provide structure? - its members will honor the community's values in its activities and decisions what activities does the OGB own/control? what decisions does the OGB make and how? what decisions does the OGB not get to make? - it consists of members elected by the community how many members? how are they elected? how long do they serve? - it has the authority to get involved in all aspects of the project involved in what ways? involved at what level? involved with what parameters in place? Some of the questions I wonder about as I read the current draft have been asked by others who want more specific information in the charter. I think Keith's idea might be a good one - his suggested changes avoids the issue of referencing other documents and does not turn the charter into a huge document full of detail, but they do make it clear that there is a lack of detail here, that the detail will be defined elsewhere and by whom, and that the detail may change. Bonnie From Casper.Dik at Sun.COM Fri Nov 4 07:14:12 2005 From: Casper.Dik at Sun.COM (Casper.Dik at Sun.COM) Date: Fri, 04 Nov 2005 16:14:12 +0100 Subject: [cab-discuss] OGB Charter v2.3 In-Reply-To: References: <4366EDE3.5040502@sun.com> Message-ID: <200511041514.jA4FECDk007179@vaticaan.Holland.Sun.COM> > >Is the Charter finished? > >The last I remember is that Jim was going to add back in two scaled down >sections from the old, overly voluminous, version which would include the >mission statement and a statement of the intent of the project. > >As is stands, there is no "meat" to version v2.3. One should be able to >hand off the charter to a newly elected governing board and say: "This is >your Charter. Go implement it and abide by its principles and guidelines". > >Can we take a vote by the CAB members on whether they think that the >Charter is finished at revision v2.3? Please fill in the following and >return it to the CAB Discuss list: > >The charter is complete and approved at rev v2.3 pending ratification by >the OpenSolaris community: > >Cab Member Yes No Comment >----------- --- --- --------------- >Al Hopper [ ] [n] No - needs meat >Rich Teer [ ] [X] >Roy Fielding [ ] [ ] >Casper Dik [ ] [X] >Simon Phipps [ ] [ ] I agree; we're better look in the bin for the bits of the poodle we need. Casper From sch at eng.sun.com Mon Nov 7 12:26:50 2005 From: sch at eng.sun.com (Stephen Hahn) Date: Mon, 7 Nov 2005 12:26:50 -0800 Subject: [cab-discuss] Development process draft release Message-ID: <20051107202650.GA233552@eng.sun.com> The development process team has assembled a believed-complete initial draft, and published it at http://www.opensolaris.org/os/community/onnv/os_dev_process/ and also as a PDF document at http://www.opensolaris.org/os/community/onnv/os_dev_process/d-devproc-alpha.pdf Your comments are welcomed; we hope the document is useful in defining the engineering dialect in use around software development at Sun. The process may be biased towards development within the ON consolidation; I hope contributors from other consolidations will call out any unreasonable generalizations we may have made. We plan to redraw all of the diagrams in their entirety for the next version, so feel free to suggest improvements. My apologies for the particularly poor rendering in the PDF version. At this stage, I think a two week review period is appropriate. On November 21, we can decide whether a new version should be generated, or whether review should continue. - Stephen -- Stephen Hahn, PhD Solaris Kernel Development, Sun Microsystems stephen.hahn at sun.com http://blogs.sun.com/sch/ From Bonnie.Corwin at Sun.COM Thu Nov 10 18:44:02 2005 From: Bonnie.Corwin at Sun.COM (Bonnie Corwin) Date: Thu, 10 Nov 2005 19:44:02 -0700 Subject: [cab-discuss] update on TOU input Message-ID: <43740572.8010309@Sun.COM> Following are responses to Bill Sommerfeld's questions about the TOU. Thanks to Patrick for pursuing this. The updated TOU will be available soon. Thanks. Bonnie 1) three pages of usage terms is a bit much. the bulk of this is really just a notification to the world of site operational policies, distinct from specific conditions on the use of the site. >> Notification of where Sun reserves the right to take action, etc. does form part of the TOU and can't be removed. 2) the DMCA take down notice contact info (last page) should perhaps be presented as a separate page on the web site. >> This will be changed, although it will require some increase in words to restate some necessary definitions that occur in both documents. 3) The notion in the first paragraph that I am becoming a party to the agreement merely by downloading a single public page from the website strikes me as somewhere between presumptuous and offensive, and will annoy people who actually read the fine print. the bulk of this is really just a notification to the world of site operational policies, distinct from specific conditions on the use of the site. (An agreement made while signing up for an account is another matter..) >> An attempt was made to address this concern with editing of the first paragraph - which will be available in the update. It was decided that since a non-registered user has access to quite a lot of site functionality, differentiating between a registered and non-registered user did not seem like a good approach. 4) paragraph 2 is the first one which makes any sense whatsoever. >> This will hopefully be improved by the editing mentioned above. 5) paragraph 3 could be construed to impede work on anti-virus/anti-worm software, as a necessary part of that work involves the exchange of (appropriately encapsulated and denatured) worm/virus samples. The "you are prohibited from posting or transmitting to or from ..." the "or from" part I don't get. if someone else's virus-infested PC transmits a worm at a mailing list hosted at the site, and filters don't catch it before it winds up in the archive hosted on the site, why am *I* liable for violating the agreement because the opensolaris.org filters are ineffective? >> The phrase "material of a disruptive or destructive nature" means that transmission of an appropriately encapsulated and denatured worm/virus would not constitute prohibited behaviour. Accidential transmission of a virus by a user would constitute prohibited behaviour, which means that Sun could take action at Sun's discretion. However, this disrection is applicable to all prohibited behavior, so this specific situation won't be called out. Note also that Sun has no intention of taking any action that isn't necessary. If problems of any kind occur, investigation will happen first and responses will hopefully be reasonable. 6) paragraph 9: so, does this mean that sun will not block a client conducting a DDoS on the server without getting lawyers involved first? i don't think you want to imply this.. >> This means to imply that Sun reserves the right to block a client without getting a lawyer involved first. From derek.cicero at sun.com Fri Nov 11 10:47:18 2005 From: derek.cicero at sun.com (Derek Cicero) Date: Fri, 11 Nov 2005 10:47:18 -0800 Subject: [cab-discuss] cab-discuss posting problem resolved Message-ID: <4374E736.5030205@sun.com> Stephen Harpster pointed out to me that the on/off/on discussion on allowing people to post to cab-discuss incorrectly resulted in people being able to send mail to the list via a mail client but not from the web interface. This has been corrected and the list now works the same as the other lists on the site. Sorry for any inconvenience. Derek -- Derek Cicero Program Manager Solaris Kernel Group, Software Division From stephen.harpster at sun.com Fri Nov 11 13:41:57 2005 From: stephen.harpster at sun.com (Stephen Harpster) Date: Fri, 11 Nov 2005 13:41:57 PST Subject: [cab-discuss] Re: Development process draft release In-Reply-To: <20051107202650.GA233552@eng.sun.com> Message-ID: <25843417.1131746827055.JavaMail.suncom@oss1>

I'm surprised that no one else has given you comments yet. Have you posted announcements on the announcements board, code board, etc.?

Here are mine:

Although impossible with the HTML version, it would be nice to have line numbers on all drafts to make reviewing easier. Maybe we just use PDF for drafts?

How are schedules defined? At some point, the CAB or someone has to say "Version x.y.z will come out on yyyy-mm-dd." And what version are we on now? 0.1?

Section 2.2
Instead of saying that features have to be available, serviceable, etc., why not be more explicit? You want features integrated with the Service Manager, Fault Manager, etc.

Section 2.4
Are there ARC reviews? Where is the ARC defined? Who sits on the ARC?

How are people going to test their stuff on all supported target platforms? I think this is a real inhibitor. Linux and FreeBSD don't require this.

How will contracts work? Not very well, I imagine. What if one party disappears? Contracts will be much harder to do outside a single company.

Section 3.1
In the definition of major, you say that major releases occur when any interface might change incompatibly. Later, you say, "...most interfaces controled by someone other than the OpenSolaris community are currently classified as Volatile, but synchronization with major imcompatibilities introduced by those communities is often derred until a Minor release is available." Shouldn't that be a Major release?

And while we're at it, why define a Major release if we're never going to have one? Either redefine all the names so that what you call a Minor release is now a Major release, or name the releases major.minor.micro. I know why we do this inside Sun, but those reasons don't apply outside. Let's fix it while we can.

Section 4.2
You need to define what an RFE is.

Section 4.4
Related to my schedule question at the top, somewhere we'll have to define the points when people can integrate new features and when they can't. For example, just before a release, I imagine people won't be able to integrate huge changing features. There is some period of stablization where only bug fixes are allowed. When will all this be defined?

When are you going to define the C-team, CRT, how they are governed, etc.? In the open world, I'm still struggling with why we need consolidations, C-teams, and CRTs. You just have projects. Each project has a set of maintainers that determine what goes into the project. There must be someone who determines if a project is allowed to integrate, but I'm not convinced that has to be a C-team or CRT. It could just be a maintainer for that bit. For example, maybe there's a TCP/IP maintainer. If you want to make any changes to TCP/IP, you have to clear it with that guy. Think of it as blowing up the C-team across the entire code base. I get a little nervous whenever we talk about adding committees. I worry that may slow things down. I don't want to toss quality out the window, but we have some freedom here. We don't have to do things exactly the same way we've done them inside Sun.

From sommerfeld at sun.com Sat Nov 12 05:10:13 2005 From: sommerfeld at sun.com (Bill Sommerfeld) Date: Sat, 12 Nov 2005 05:10:13 -0800 Subject: [cab-discuss] Re: Development process draft release In-Reply-To: <25843417.1131746827055.JavaMail.suncom@oss1> References: <25843417.1131746827055.JavaMail.suncom@oss1> Message-ID: <1131801013.1318.75.camel@localhost> On Fri, 2005-11-11 at 13:41, Stephen Harpster wrote: > When are you going to define the C-team, CRT, how they are governed, > etc.? In the open world, I'm still struggling with why we need > consolidations, C-teams, and CRTs. You just have projects. A consolidation is a tree of source code built as a single unit. You need someone responsible for ensuring that this unit continues to function; they need the authority to back out broken changes, etc., > For example, maybe there's a TCP/IP maintainer. If you want to make > any changes to TCP/IP, you have to clear it with that guy. Think of > it as blowing up the C-team across the entire code base. when a change to TCP/IP causes NFS to stop working, who gets to decide whether: - NFS has to adapt to the change? - TCP/IP has to back out its change? - something in the middle? Changes to "projects" often have non-local impact. The ARCs look for these impacts at an architectural level, but often these non-local effects aren't discovered until later -- perhaps even after integration. IMHO if there isn't someone watching all these integrations and taking a global view of the system, you'll have a much harder time both discovering, and then later correcting, severe brokenness. - Bill From john.plocher at sun.com Sat Nov 12 08:24:58 2005 From: john.plocher at sun.com (John Plocher) Date: Sat, 12 Nov 2005 08:24:58 -0800 Subject: [cab-discuss] Re: Development process draft release In-Reply-To: <1131801013.1318.75.camel@localhost> References: <25843417.1131746827055.JavaMail.suncom@oss1> <1131801013.1318.75.camel@localhost> Message-ID: <4376175A.70800@sun.com> Bill Sommerfeld wrote: > On Fri, 2005-11-11 at 13:41, Stephen Harpster wrote: > >>When are you going to define the C-team, CRT, how they are governed, >>etc.? In the open world, I'm still struggling with why we need >>consolidations, C-teams, and CRTs. You just have projects. > > > A consolidation is a tree of source code built as a single unit. ... > IMHO if there isn't someone watching all these integrations and taking a > global view of the system, you'll have a much harder time both > discovering, and then later correcting, severe brokenness. +1 on Bill's comments. [It is obvious that we *really* need a set of operational definitions. What are Consolidations, Projects, Communities, C-Teams... and how exactly do they relate to each other? Without a common understanding I don't know if I should associate your "just Projects" with my "its a Consolidation" or with my "its a bugfix effort"...] It may be, though, that this discussion is really about refactoring the granularity of the ON consolidation into several smaller, more focused sub-consolidations. That is, there is a logical hierarchy of sub-consolidations that, for efficiency (or out of laziness :-) we have simply stuffed together into the ON wad of stuff: |== "binutils" ON ==| |== kernel ==| | |== Drivers ==| | | |== ... | | | |== Networking ==| | | |== TCP ... | | |== NFS ... | | |== ... |== ... |== ... I believe it *is* important to start working on this refactoring, not to "blow it up", but to make all of OpenSolaris more accessible and easier to evolve. If we wish to have a world where there _could_ be a "TCP project", we need to make it easier to decouple TCP from the rest of ON in some modular, abstracted way. IMHO, most of the people in the community will be interested in development of these sub-components and not in program management. Based on that intuition, I believe it would be foolish to abandon the program management/process structure we have today (C-Team, CRT, gatekeeper...) in the hope that somehow somebody else will pick it up and maintain the stability and robustness that we need/expect/require out of Solaris. -John Plocher From john.plocher at sun.com Sat Nov 12 08:41:03 2005 From: john.plocher at sun.com (John Plocher) Date: Sat, 12 Nov 2005 08:41:03 -0800 Subject: [cab-discuss] Re: Development process draft release In-Reply-To: <25843417.1131746827055.JavaMail.suncom@oss1> References: <25843417.1131746827055.JavaMail.suncom@oss1> Message-ID: <43761B1F.5020708@sun.com> Stephen Harpster wrote: > And what version are we on now? 0.1? ON is SunOS 5.11 by definition of the release taxonomy. Products and distros built on top of ON can be whatever version that they wish to be (Schillix 0.1, 0.2,...., Solaris 11, ...) > Section 2.4 > Are there ARC reviews? Where is the ARC defined? Who sits on the ARC? The ARC stuff is being developed independently - some as part of the governance proposals, some by the people participating on the opensolaris-arc forum, as well as a bunch of us internal to Sun who are (frantically!) trying to push what we have outside the company so thatr we can have meaningful discussions and evolve a structure that will be effective and work for us all. > Contracts will be much harder to do outside a single company. I tend to agree - I think the bar goes way up and the preference changes to wanting only public interfaces between components. Section 3.1 > In the definition of major, you say that major releases occur > when any interface might change incompatibly. Later, you say, > "... interfaces ... Volatile,...a Minor release" > Shouldn't that be a Major release? It could be as well, but since "we don't do major releases of ON", it would be kind of pointless :-) > why define a Major release if we're never going to have one? Because not all parts of OpenSolaris are the ON consolidaton. The Desktop/JDS parts of OpenSOlaris do not labor under the same "anti-major" constraints that ON does; they are much more likely to include major releases of browsers, desktop office suites and the like. -John From ian at ianshome.com Sat Nov 12 10:57:17 2005 From: ian at ianshome.com (Ian Collins) Date: Sun, 13 Nov 2005 07:57:17 +1300 Subject: [cab-discuss] Re: Development process draft release In-Reply-To: <4376175A.70800@sun.com> References: <25843417.1131746827055.JavaMail.suncom@oss1> <1131801013.1318.75.camel@localhost> <4376175A.70800@sun.com> Message-ID: <43763B0D.5080200@ianshome.com> John Plocher wrote: >> IMHO if there isn't someone watching all these integrations and taking a >> global view of the system, you'll have a much harder time both >> discovering, and then later correcting, severe brokenness. > > > +1 on Bill's comments. > > [It is obvious that we *really* need a set of operational definitions. > What are Consolidations, Projects, Communities, C-Teams... and how > exactly do they relate to each other? Without a common understanding > I don't know if I should associate your "just Projects" with my "its > a Consolidation" or with my "its a bugfix effort"...] > > It may be, though, that this discussion is really about refactoring > the granularity of the ON consolidation into several smaller, more > focused sub-consolidations. That is, there is a logical hierarchy of > sub-consolidations that, for efficiency (or out of laziness :-) we > have simply stuffed together into the ON wad of stuff: > > |== "binutils" > ON ==| > |== kernel ==| > | |== Drivers ==| > | | |== ... > | | > | |== Networking ==| > | | |== TCP ... > | | |== NFS ... > | | |== ... > |== ... |== ... > > I believe it *is* important to start working on this refactoring, not > to "blow it up", but to make all of OpenSolaris more accessible and > easier to evolve. If we wish to have a world where there _could_ be a > "TCP project", we need to make it easier to decouple TCP from the rest > of ON in some modular, abstracted way. > > IMHO, most of the people in the community will be interested in > development of these sub-components and not in program management. > Based on that intuition, I believe it would be foolish to abandon the > program management/process structure we have today (C-Team, CRT, > gatekeeper...) in the hope that somehow somebody else will pick it up > and maintain the stability and robustness that we need/expect/require > out of Solaris. > A big +1 from me. I'm sure there are a lot of people who would like to be able to work on one component without having to replace the kernel. A good start would be to be able to work stand alone on loadable components, such as drivers. Can this be done today with the current consolidation and build process? Ian From Karyn.Ritter at Sun.COM Sat Nov 12 11:49:50 2005 From: Karyn.Ritter at Sun.COM (Karyn Ritter) Date: Sat, 12 Nov 2005 11:49:50 -0800 Subject: [cab-discuss] request for enhancements for b.o.o. Message-ID: <4376475E.2040201@sun.com> I've sent email asking for "requests for enhancements" for bugs.opensolaris.org to the website-discuss mailing list. Please feel free to comment: http://www.opensolaris.org/jive/thread.jspa?threadID=3439&tstart=0 . Thanks, Karyn From David.Comay at Sun.COM Sat Nov 12 22:04:16 2005 From: David.Comay at Sun.COM (David.Comay at Sun.COM) Date: Sat, 12 Nov 2005 22:04:16 -0800 (PST) Subject: [cab-discuss] Re: Development process draft release In-Reply-To: <25843417.1131746827055.JavaMail.suncom@oss1> References: <25843417.1131746827055.JavaMail.suncom@oss1> Message-ID: Stephen, > Section 2.2 > Instead of saying that features have to be available, serviceable, > etc., why not be more explicit? You want features integrated with the > Service Manager, Fault Manager, etc. Because this document is meant to lay down the high-level requirements of OpenSolaris that are not likely to change over time. Technologies like SMF and FMA are implementations of frameworks that allow OpenSolaris to have the "available" and "serviceable" attributes, but it's possible in the future those technologies might be replaced with something different (however unlikely that seems right now). We did not want to spell out precise technologies here although I would expect something like the ARC Twenty Questions[1] to perhaps steer contributors to the correct answer at any one time. > Section 2.4 > Are there ARC reviews? Where is the ARC defined? Who sits on the > ARC? There are architectural reviews in the abstract process. An implementation of the process might be the ARC and it's in that implementation that the structure of the ARC, who sits on it, how it runs its reviews, etc would be decided. > How are people going to test their stuff on all supported target > platforms? I think this is a real inhibitor. Linux and FreeBSD don't > require this. The belief is that there will be a test farm set up for OpenSolaris contributors to test their changes on these platforms. If we don't require this level of testing, then some platforms are likely going to stagnate and fall into disrepair and their presence in the project will likely slow down development across the board. > How will contracts work? Not very well, I imagine. What if one party > disappears? Contracts will be much harder to do outside a single > company. I believe that's true but personally, I think having some sort of agreement including contract details, etc that is archived will help contributors who wish to make a change to an interface and needs to find out who might be affected by the proposed change. I think it's not unlike what happens internally when organizations change, and/or people come and go. Having it documented *might* be of some help. > Section 4.2 > You need to define what an RFE is. Yes, we don't seem to define that in the glossary. > When are you going to define the C-team, CRT, how they are governed, > etc.? In the open world, I'm still struggling with why we need > consolidations, C-teams, and CRTs. You just have projects. Each > project has a set of maintainers that determine what goes into the > project. There must be someone who determines if a project is allowed > to integrate, but I'm not convinced that has to be a C-team or CRT. It > could just be a maintainer for that bit. For example, maybe there's a > TCP/IP maintainer. If you want to make any changes to TCP/IP, you have > to clear it with that guy. Think of it as blowing up the C-team across > the entire code base. I get a little nervous whenever we talk about > adding committees. I worry that may slow things down. I don't want to > toss quality out the window, but we have some freedom here. We don't > have to do things exactly the same way we've done them inside Sun. I think Bill covered this fairly well but I want to mention something about how this process was defined and documented. Although clearly most of the group that came up with this were Sun employees, there was a conscious attempt to not use the existing Sun/Solaris processes or Sun's documented Software Development Framework as a basis. Rather, we started with what OpenSolaris was (see the Fundamentals) and wrote out the attributes or design principles which made OpenSolaris what it is (and also, what it was not). From those abstract design principles, we tried to imagine how someone might contribute changes to that operating system, whether from a coding point of view, or documentation or even just participating in designing the process. We also examined a number of other open-source projects to see how they handle the various steps of development. It was from those discussions that the flows came to be. That's why you don't see ARC listed but rather the need to have changes architecturally reviewed. There is the notion of a C-Team but in the abstract, there is a need for someone to verify that a proposed change is complete, ready to be part of the release bench its headed for and whether the release branch itself is ready to have it included. In the end, the process does mirror in many ways the Software Development Framework but it certainly wasn't intended to do so. Rather, we tried to make an honest, organic effort to design what sort of process is necessary to make an operating system with the attributes that we believe makes OpenSolaris compelling and perhaps different from other open-source projects. dsc [1] For those contributors outside of Sun, the ARC Twenty Questions is a document that poses a developer a series of questions (now, much more than 20!) about how their proposed change interfaces with the rest of the system, and in particular, with key OpenSolaris frameworks. It's meant to provide an overview of the proposed change. From Stephen.Harpster at Sun.COM Mon Nov 14 08:47:01 2005 From: Stephen.Harpster at Sun.COM (Stephen Harpster) Date: Mon, 14 Nov 2005 08:47:01 -0800 Subject: [cab-discuss] Re: Development process draft release In-Reply-To: References: <25843417.1131746827055.JavaMail.suncom@oss1> Message-ID: <4378BF85.8010105@Sun.COM> >>How are people going to test their stuff on all supported target >>platforms? I think this is a real inhibitor. Linux and FreeBSD don't >>require this. >> >> > >The belief is that there will be a test farm set up for OpenSolaris >contributors to test their changes on these platforms. If we don't >require this level of testing, then some platforms are likely going to >stagnate and fall into disrepair and their presence in the project will >likely slow down development across the board. > > > And will this testbed contain PowerPC servers? ARM? Itanium? I don't want to limit or discourage ports to other architectures simply because of this requirement and that the test farm doesn't contain said platform. I also don't want to be in the position of continuously buying new and exotic hardware for the test farm. I understand what you're trying to achieve, but there has to be a compromise..... -- Stephen Harpster Director, Open Source Software Sun Microsystems, Inc. From rich.teer at rite-group.com Mon Nov 14 11:58:58 2005 From: rich.teer at rite-group.com (Rich Teer) Date: Mon, 14 Nov 2005 11:58:58 -0800 (PST) Subject: [cab-discuss] Re: Development process draft release In-Reply-To: <4378BF85.8010105@Sun.COM> References: <25843417.1131746827055.JavaMail.suncom@oss1> <4378BF85.8010105@Sun.COM> Message-ID: On Mon, 14 Nov 2005, Stephen Harpster wrote: > I don't want to limit or discourage ports to other architectures simply > because of this requirement and that the test farm doesn't contain said > platform. I also don't want to be in the position of continuously > buying new and exotic hardware for the test farm. Agreed on both counts. > I understand what you're trying to achieve, but there has to be a > compromise..... How about this: stuff must build/work equally well on SPARC and x86 where possible (which should hopefully trap most endian issues), both of which will presumably be available via the test farm. Other platforms would be at the developers' discretion. -- Rich Teer, SCNA, SCSA, OpenSolaris CAB member President, Rite Online Inc. Voice: +1 (250) 979-1638 URL: http://www.rite-group.com/rich From Casper.Dik at Sun.COM Mon Nov 14 12:00:39 2005 From: Casper.Dik at Sun.COM (Casper.Dik at Sun.COM) Date: Mon, 14 Nov 2005 21:00:39 +0100 Subject: [cab-discuss] Re: Development process draft release In-Reply-To: <4378BF85.8010105@Sun.COM> References: <25843417.1131746827055.JavaMail.suncom@oss1> <4378BF85.8010105@Sun.COM> Message-ID: <200511142000.jAEK0fDk026787@vaticaan.Holland.Sun.COM> >And will this testbed contain PowerPC servers? ARM? Itanium? When such ports acquire sufficient mass, then that might need to be a requirement. >I don't want to limit or discourage ports to other architectures simply >because of this requirement and that the test farm doesn't contain said >platform. I also don't want to be in the position of continuously >buying new and exotic hardware for the test farm. > >I understand what you're trying to achieve, but there has to be a >compromise..... Perhaps, in true "grid spirit", we can have people donate systems to the grid; without the systems to be actually moved some place. Casper From Paul.Jakma at Sun.COM Mon Nov 14 12:25:49 2005 From: Paul.Jakma at Sun.COM (Paul Jakma) Date: Mon, 14 Nov 2005 20:25:49 +0000 (GMT) Subject: [cab-discuss] Re: Development process draft release In-Reply-To: References: <25843417.1131746827055.JavaMail.suncom@oss1> <4378BF85.8010105@Sun.COM> Message-ID: On Mon, 14 Nov 2005, Rich Teer wrote: > How about this: stuff must build/work equally well on SPARC and x86 > where possible (which should hopefully trap most endian issues), Also: Require -m64 build testing on either US or x86-64 to try flush out 32bit assumptions. --paulj From keith.wesolowski at sun.com Mon Nov 14 13:56:27 2005 From: keith.wesolowski at sun.com (Keith M Wesolowski) Date: Mon, 14 Nov 2005 13:56:27 -0800 Subject: [cab-discuss] Re: Development process draft release In-Reply-To: References: <25843417.1131746827055.JavaMail.suncom@oss1> <4378BF85.8010105@Sun.COM> Message-ID: <20051114215627.GB11870@sun.com> On Mon, Nov 14, 2005 at 11:58:58AM -0800, Rich Teer wrote: > How about this: stuff must build/work equally well on SPARC and x86 > where possible (which should hopefully trap most endian issues), both > of which will presumably be available via the test farm. Other platforms > would be at the developers' discretion. As a veteran of such a second-class port, I will oppose most vigorously any attempt to allow these ports into a consolidation. If a port doesn't have enough value to the contributor community to maintain it as a part of regular development, it shouldn't be integrated at all. The necessary value might be a business interest on the part of Sun or another major contributor, or it might be the personal desire of a large and active group of independent individuals. The criterion, however, must be a reasonable expectation that the new architecture will receive first-class treatment from all contributors, not just its own specialists. The latter model does not lead to maintainable software and does nothing to foster new ports. Integration does not help you maintain your port without a global commitment to its treatment as a first-class entity. If you wish to maintain a second-class port, you're free to do so as a project; for all practical purposes, that's what second-class ports end up doing anyway, because the "official" sources too frequently include changes that break the unsupported architectures. The end result is a tangled mess of nonfunctional (and never-used) code in the official sources and no decrease in the maintenance burden on the port maintainers. Remember that in the future Sun will not have sole authority to declare an architecture supported or unsupported, nor will we have sole obligation to provide test equipment. If you want to putback a project to port ON to PowerPC,you should arrange for PowerPC testing resources to be made available rather than assume that Sun will do so (unless you are Sun and it's your project). Failure to do this would be seen as an additional increase in the burden you place on other developers and would make acceptance of your project less likely. None of this applies to projects that aren't targeting consolidations, so none of the rules under consideration here can possibly block you from doing a port or any other kind of radical or far-reaching project. I do not believe that disallowing the integration into a consolidation of code which is not expected to be maintained would form a hindrance to progress. -- Keith M Wesolowski "Sir, we're surrounded!" Solaris Kernel Team "Excellent; we can attack in any direction!" From rich.teer at rite-group.com Mon Nov 14 14:50:23 2005 From: rich.teer at rite-group.com (Rich Teer) Date: Mon, 14 Nov 2005 14:50:23 -0800 (PST) Subject: [cab-discuss] Re: Development process draft release In-Reply-To: <20051114215627.GB11870@sun.com> References: <25843417.1131746827055.JavaMail.suncom@oss1> <4378BF85.8010105@Sun.COM> <20051114215627.GB11870@sun.com> Message-ID: On Mon, 14 Nov 2005, Keith M Wesolowski wrote: > As a veteran of such a second-class port, I will oppose most > vigorously any attempt to allow these ports into a consolidation. If Good point, but I think some clarification on my part is in order. I was reading this part of the thread to mean "any and all changes must be tested on all platforms". In other words, all changes to generic, non-platform-specific code, e.g., ls, must be tested on all platforms. If *that* is the case, I don't know how realistic it is to test on every platform. I agree that in principle all ports should be considered "tier 1", but how does one handle the case of testing a platform outside of the farm or ones own resources? Do we delay a putback until someone from the $CPU community says that they've tested the changes and they're OK? > Remember that in the future Sun will not have sole authority to > declare an architecture supported or unsupported, nor will we have > sole obligation to provide test equipment. If you want to putback a > project to port ON to PowerPC,you should arrange for PowerPC testing > resources to be made available rather than assume that Sun will do so > (unless you are Sun and it's your project). Failure to do this would Agreed. -- Rich Teer, SCNA, SCSA, OpenSolaris CAB member President, Rite Online Inc. Voice: +1 (250) 979-1638 URL: http://www.rite-group.com/rich From Bonnie.Corwin at Sun.COM Tue Nov 15 12:46:49 2005 From: Bonnie.Corwin at Sun.COM (Bonnie Corwin) Date: Tue, 15 Nov 2005 13:46:49 -0700 Subject: [cab-discuss] latest TOU Message-ID: <437A4939.1090504@Sun.COM> Attached are text files of the updated TOU and the Copyright Policy. These are now separate documents. Changes to the TOU from the last draft: - Sentences added to the introduction at the beginning. - Section 3: Sentence added after first sentence. - Section 4: Text added to the beginning of the second sentence. - Section 10: Sentence added at the end. - Section 12: Sentence added at the end. - Section 13: Text inserted within the first sentence. Sentence added at the end. No changes to the Copyright Policy. The new TOU and the Copyright Policy will be updated on the website in December coincident with an update to the site infrastructure (page templates get updated to change these). Thanks. Bonnie -------------- next part -------------- An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed... Name: OpenSolaris_TOU_Nov1405-3.txt URL: -------------- next part -------------- An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed... Name: OpenSolaris_CopyrightPolicy_Nov1405.txt URL: From derek.cicero at sun.com Tue Nov 15 13:20:00 2005 From: derek.cicero at sun.com (Derek Cicero) Date: Tue, 15 Nov 2005 13:20:00 -0800 Subject: [cab-discuss] Re: [program-team] latest TOU In-Reply-To: <437A4939.1090504@Sun.COM> References: <437A4939.1090504@Sun.COM> Message-ID: <437A5100.1000500@sun.com> While I don't want this process to take longer than it already has, the following section concerns me: 3. You are prohibited from posting or transmitting to or from this Website any unlawful, threatening, libelous, defamatory, obscene, pornographic, or profane material, any software virus, worm or other material of a disruptive or destructive nature, or any other material that could give rise to any civil or criminal liability under the law. *We do hope that you are still able to enjoy using the Website with these restrictions in place.* The emphasis is mine. It sounds like we are apologizing for not letting people post viruses. If a users idea of enjoyment is to engage in criminal activity, then I would say that we hope they *don't* enjoy the site. Perhaps I am missing something, but it seems odd. Derek Bonnie Corwin wrote: > Attached are text files of the updated TOU and the Copyright Policy. > These are now separate documents. > > Changes to the TOU from the last draft: > > - Sentences added to the introduction at the beginning. > > - Section 3: Sentence added after first sentence. > > - Section 4: Text added to the beginning of the second sentence. > > - Section 10: Sentence added at the end. > > - Section 12: Sentence added at the end. > > - Section 13: Text inserted within the first sentence. Sentence added > at the end. > > No changes to the Copyright Policy. > > > The new TOU and the Copyright Policy will be updated on the website in > December coincident with an update to the site infrastructure (page > templates get updated to change these). > > Thanks. > > Bonnie > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > OpenSolaris.org Terms of Use > > Please read these terms carefully. We want you to use this site, but > if you > use this site in any manner these terms apply to you. We hope you can > appreciate the need for this document. BY ACCESSING, BROWSING OR USING > THIS > WEBSITE, ANY OF ITS SOFTWARE, CONTENT, SERVICES, OR INFORMATION, YOU > ACKNOWLEDGE THAT YOU HAVE READ, UNDERSTOOD AND AGREE TO BE BOUND BY THESE > TERMS OF USE. IF YOU DO NOT AGREE TO ALL OF THESE TERMS, DO NOT USE THIS > WEBSITE. If you are using the Website on behalf of your employer or > another > entity, you represent and warrant that you are authorized to accept these > Terms on your employer's or other entity's behalf, and that your > employer or > other entity agrees to indemnify Sun for violations of these Terms of > Use. > > 1. This OpenSolaris.org website ("Website") is a service made > available by > Sun Microsystems, Inc. ("Host"). All on-line services available via this > Website ("Services"), and all software, documentation, data, > information and > other materials provided on or through this Website ("Content") may be > used > only under the following terms and conditions ("Terms of Use") and any > applicable licenses. > > 2. Host and the users of this Website ("Users") do not want to receive > confidential information from you through this Website. ANY > INFORMATION OR > MATERIAL YOU SUBMIT TO THIS WEBSITE WILL BE DEEMED NOT TO BE > CONFIDENTIAL. > You are responsible for the Content that you submit, and you, not > Host, have > full responsibility for that Content, including its legality, > reliability, > appropriateness, originality, and related patent and copyright matters. > > 3. You are prohibited from posting or transmitting to or from this > Website > any unlawful, threatening, libelous, defamatory, obscene, > pornographic, or > profane material, any software virus, worm or other material of a > disruptive > or destructive nature, or any other material that could give rise to any > civil or criminal liability under the law. We do hope that you are still > able to enjoy using the Website with these restrictions in place. You are > further prohibited from using this Website to: (a) transmit spam, bulk or > unsolicited communications; (b) pretend to be Host or someone else, or > spoof > Host's or someone else's identity; (c) forge headers or otherwise > manipulate > identifiers (including URLs) in order to disguise the origin of any > Service > or Content transmitted via this Website; (d) misrepresent your > affiliation > with a person or entity; (e) disrupt the normal flow of dialogue or > otherwise > act in a manner that negatively affects Users' ability to use this > Website; > (f) engage in activities that would violate any applicable local, state, > national or international law, or any regulations having the force of > law, > including but not limited to attempting to compromise the security of any > networked account or site, stalking, or making threats of harm; or (g) > collect or store personal data about other Users unless specifically > authorized by such Users. > > 4. The Website may contain links to third-party websites or resources. We > hope these resources will prove useful, but Host and the Users make no > representations whatsoever about any other website or external resources > that you may access through this Website or through a link from this > Website. > When you access another website or external resource, even one that may > contain this Website's name or mark, you acknowledge and agree that it is > independent and that Host is not responsible or liable for: (a) the > availability or accuracy of such websites or resources; or (b) the > content, > products, or services on or available from such websites or resources. > Links to such websites or resources do not mean that the Users or Host > endorse or accept any responsibility for the content on, or the use of, > such websites or external resources. You acknowledge sole responsibility > for and assume all risk arising from your use of any such websites or > resources. > > 5. Host may run advertisements and promotions from third parties on this > Website. Any action you may take based upon such advertisements or > promotions of a third party, and any dealings you may have with such > third > party, are solely between you and that third party. Host is not > responsible > or liable for any loss or damage of any sort incurred as to result of any > such actions or dealings or as a result of the presence of any non-Sun > advertiser on this Website. > > 6. TO THE FULL EXTENT PERMITTED BY LAW, HOST IS NOT LIABLE TO YOU OR ANY > OTHER INDIVIDUAL OR ENTITY FOR ANY DIRECT, INDIRECT, INCIDENTAL, > PUNITIVE, > SPECIAL OR CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES RELATED TO OR ARISING OUT OF ANY USE OF, > ACCESS TO, OR INABILITY TO ACCESS THIS WEBSITE, CONTENT, SERVICES, OR OF > ANY OTHER LINKED WEBSITE OR EXTERNAL RESOURCE INCLUDING, WITHOUT > LIMITATION, > ANY LOST PROFITS, LOST SALES, LOST REVENUE, LOSS OF GOODWILL, BUSINESS > INTERRUPTION, LOSS OF PROGRAMS OR OTHER DATA EVEN IF SUN IS EXPRESSLY > ADVISED > OR AWARE OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGES OR LOSSES. YOU ASSUME ALL > RISK > FOR ANY DAMAGE TO YOUR COMPUTER SYSTEM OR LOSS OF DATA THAT RESULTS FROM > OBTAINING ANY CONTENT FROM THE WEBSITE, INCLUDING ANY DAMAGES > RESULTING FROM > COMPUTER VIRUSES, WORMS, OR OTHER ITEMS OF A DESTRUCTIVE NATURE. SOME > JURISDICTIONS DO NOT ALLOW THE EXCLUSION OR LIMITATION OF LIABILITY FOR > CONSEQUENTIAL OR INCIDENTAL DAMAGES, SO THE ABOVE LIMITATION MAY NOT > APPLY TO > YOU. > > 7. ALL SERVICES AND CONTENT ARE PROVIDED BY HOST ON AN "AS IS", "AS > AVAILABLE", AND "WITH ALL FAULTS" BASIS ONLY. YOU ASSUME ALL RISK OF > LOSS OR > OTHER HARM FOR THE USE THEREOF. HOST PROVIDES NO REPRESENTATIONS, > CONDITIONS > AND/OR WARRANTIES, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING, WITHOUT LIMITATION, THE > IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE, > MERCHANTABILITY AND > NONINFRINGEMENT. HOST MAKES NO WARRANTY OR REPRESENTATION THAT: (A) THIS > WEBSITE WILL BE UNINTERRUPTED, TIMELY, SECURE, OR ERROR-FREE; (B) > CONTENT, > SERVICES, OR RESULTS THAT MAY BE OBTAINED FROM THE USE OF THIS WEBSITE > WILL > BE ACCURATE OR RELIABLE; (C) THE QUALITY OF ANY PRODUCTS, SERVICES, > CONTENT, > INFORMATION, OR OTHER MATERIAL PURCHASED OR OBTAINED FROM THIS WEBSITE > WILL > MEET YOUR EXPECTATIONS OR REQUIREMENTS; OR (D) ANY ERRORS IN THIS > WEBSITE, > CONTENT OR SERVICES WILL BE CORRECTED. > > 8. Host reserves the right to investigate complaints or reported > violations > of these Terms of Use, and/or applicable licenses and copyright > information > on the Website and to take any action Host deems appropriate including, > without limitation, reporting and providing information of any suspected > unlawful activity to law enforcement officials, regulators, or other > third > parties, including disclosing any information necessary or appropriate to > such persons or entities relating to user profiles, e-mail addresses, > usage > history, posted materials, IP addresses, and traffic information. > > 9. Host reserves the right to seek all remedies available at law and in > equity for violations of these Terms of Use, including, but not > limited to, > the right to block access from a particular Internet address to this > Website. > > 10. This Website may contain other proprietary notices, licenses and > copyright information, the terms of which must be observed and > followed by > you. In the event of any conflict between the license(s) applicable to > Content or Services and the Terms of Use, the applicable license(s) > prevail. > Except as otherwise expressly stated, by providing the Content or > Services, > Host does not grant any licenses to any copyrights, patents or any other > intellectual property rights. For example, large portions of the > OpenSolaris > source code are under Sun's Common Development and Distribution License > (refer to the download page for specific details). > > 11. The Content provided on this Website is provided under the terms and > conditions of the applicable license(s) on the Website. Any Content > provided by you is made available to Users and Host under the terms of > the > license(s) applicable to contributing such Content to the Website. For > all > Content, including, without limitation, patent, copyright, and other > intellectual property rights in such Content, owned or licensable by > you at > any time without payment, ideas, concepts, know-how and techniques, > uploaded, > submitted or otherwise made available by you on the Website or to the > Users > and/or Host (collectively "Material"), you grant (or warrant that the > owner > of such rights has expressly granted) Host a worldwide, unrestricted, > royalty-free, fully paid up, irrevocable, perpetual, non-exclusive > license > to use, make, reproduce, import, compile, prepare derivative works of, > publicly display, publicly perform, transmit, sell, distribute, > sublicense, > demonstrate, market, disclose, have made, offer for sale, lease, transfer > or otherwise exploit such Materials, and/or derivative works thereof, and > authorize third parties to do any, some or all of the foregoing > including, > but not limited to, sublicensing others to do any, some or all of the > foregoing indefinitely. You represent that you are legally entitled to > grant the rights and privileges conveyed by this section and warrant that > your Material, to the best of your knowledge, does not violate any other > party's patents, copyrights, trademarks or other intellectual property > rights. > > 12. You acknowledge that Host: (i) does not pre-screen Content; (ii) has > discretion to determine whether to post or not post Content; and (iii) > can > delete, cease providing, or modify the Content at any time for any > reason. > The Content on this Website may contain technical inaccuracies or > typographical errors. Host may also improve or change the Content at any > time without notice. Host reserves the right, at any time, with or > without > cause and without notice, to modify, suspend or terminate in whole or in > part: (i) the Services, (ii) your use or access to the Services, or (iii) > both. Host is not liable to you or any third party for any modification > or deletion of Content, for any posting refusal to post Content, or any > modification, suspension or termination of Services. Please understand > that this is an active Website and we expect that the Content is > likely to > change. > > 13. If you choose to register on this Website (and we hope you do), you > are responsible for providing accurate and complete information about > yourself during registration and to updating such information to keep it > current. You accept all risks of unauthorized access to the information > that you provide. Host may, in its sole discretion, terminate the > accounts > or access rights of Users who may have provided inaccurate or incomplete > information during registration. We hope that, given these restrictions, > you still take the time to provide a full profile which lets other people > in the community get to know you. > > 14. Host is committed to respecting the intellectual property rights of > others, and we ask our Users to do the same. Host may, in its sole > discretion, terminate the accounts or access rights of Users who may be > infringing or may otherwise be violating the intellectual property rights > of others. If you believe that your work has been copied on this Website > in a way that constitutes infringement, please contact the copyright > agent > as described in the copyright policy set forth in detail elsewhere on the > Website. The Website, Services, and Content are protected by copyright, > trademark, and other laws of both the United States and foreign > countries. > Except as expressly permitted in these Terms of Use and any applicable > license, you may not reproduce, modify, or prepare derivative works based > upon, distribute, sell, transfer, publicly display, publicly perform, > transmit, or otherwise use the Website, Services, or Content. You may not > copy or modify the HTML code used to generate web pages on the Website. > > 15. California law and controlling U.S. Federal law govern any action > relating to these Terms of Use without regard to any jurisdiction's > choice > law rules. You agree to submit all such disputes to the personal and > exclusive jurisdiction of the state and federal courts located within the > county of Santa Clara, California USA. > > 16. Host may amend these Terms of Use at any time by posting the amended > terms on this Website. By continuing to access or use the Website, > Services > or Content after Host makes any such revision, you agree to be bound > by the > revised Terms of Use. > > 17. "Host Trademarks" means all names, marks, brands, logos, designs, > trade > dress, slogans and other designations Host uses in connection with its > products and services. You agree to comply with the Trademark and Logo > Usage Requirements located at http://www.sun.com/policies/trademarks. You > may not remove or alter any Host Trademarks, or co-brand your own > products > or material with Host Trademarks, without Host's prior written consent. > You acknowledge Host's rights in Host Trademarks and agree that any > use of > Host Trademarks by you shall inure to Host's sole benefit. You agree not > to incorporate any Host Trademarks into your trademarks, service marks, > company names, Internet addresses, domain names, or any other similar > designations, for use on or in connection with computer or > Internet-related > products, services or technologies. > > 18. You consent to the collection, processing and storage by Host of your > personal information in accordance with the terms of Host's Privacy > Policy, > which is available at http://www.sun.com/privacy. You agree to comply > with > all applicable laws and regulations, and the terms of that privacy > policy, > with respect to any access, use and/or submission by you of any personal > information in connection with this Website. > > Notwithstanding anything to the contrary, if you choose to participate in > an open source or community source process on this Website, whether by > contributing code, participating in mailing lists or sending e-mails, > your > participation is public and your privacy cannot be protected to the > extent > that you provide personal information such as your e-mail address. To the > extent that you contribute code, information, articles or other > material to > this Website containing personal information, Host cannot protect the > privacy of such personal information and such material may be provided to > others under the Terms of Use and applicable licenses. > > 19. The Website may contain forward-looking statements within the meaning > of the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995. Such forward- > looking statements may include statements regarding market > expectations and > opportunities, expectations about financials, research and development > and > strategies, statements concerning Host's roadmaps, market share > growth, and > product and service development and introduction, and our continuous > evaluation of the competitiveness of our product and service offerings. > These forward-looking statements are just predictions and involve > risks and > uncertainties. Actual results may differ materially from results > discussed > in the forward-looking statements. Factors that may cause such a > difference include risks related to adverse changes in general economic > conditions, failure to reduce costs, lack of success in technical > advancements, the timely development, production and acceptance of new > products and services, and Sun's ability to compete in a highly > competitive > and rapidly changing marketplace. For a detailed listing of the potential > factors affecting Host's business and these forward-looking statements, > please refer to Host's periodic reports on Forms 10-Q and 10-K that are > filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission. > > 20. Any express waiver or failure to exercise promptly any right under > the > Terms of Use will not create a continuing waiver or any expectation of > non- > enforcement. If any provision of the Terms of Use is held invalid by any > law or regulation of any government, or by any court or arbitrator, such > provision will be replaced with a new provision that accomplishes the > original business purpose, and the other provisions of the Terms of Use > will remain in full force and effect. > > 21. In addition to the Terms of Use and unless otherwise noted, the > standard > Host terms and conditions of sale in your jurisdiction govern > purchases you > make through the Website, unless you have in effect a separate valid > written > purchase or license agreement with Host for the products or services > purchased, in which case that separate agreement governs, and in cases of > conflict, prevails. > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > Copyright Policy > > Sun Microsystems, Inc. ("Sun") is committed to respecting others' > intellectual property rights, and we ask that users of this Website do > the > same. Sun may, in its sole discretion and in appropriate circumstances, > terminate the accounts or access rights of users who violate others' > intellectual property rights. > > Pursuant to 17 United States Code 512(c)(2) (Digital Millennium Copyright > Act of 1998), Sun's designated agent for notice of alleged copyright > infringement appearing on the OpenSolaris.org website ("Website") is: > > Copyright Counsel, Sun Microsystems Inc. > 4150 Network Circle, Santa Clara, CA 95054 > Ph: 650-786-3142 > Fax: 650-786-2325 > Email: copyrights at sun.com > > Filing a notice of infringement with Sun requires compliance with the > requirements specified in Title II of the Digital Millennium Copyright > Act > of 1998. The text of this statute can be found at the U.S. Copyright > Office website, www.copyright.gov. If you believe that your work has been > copied in a way that constitutes copyright infringement on this Website, > please deliver the following information to Sun's Copyright Agent: > > 1. An electronic or physical signature of the person authorized to act on > behalf of the copyright owner; > 2. A description of the copyrighted work that you claim has been > infringed; > 3. A description of the material that you claim is infringing; > 4. A description of the location on the Website of the material that you > claim is infringing; > 5. Your address, telephone number and e-mail address so that we can > contact > you; > 6. A statement by you that you have a good faith belief that the > disputed use > is not authorized by the copyright owner, its agent or the law; and > 7. A statement by you, made under penalty of perjury, that the > information in > your notice to Sun is accurate and that you are the copyright owner or > authorized to act on behalf of the copyright owner. > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > _______________________________________________ > program-team mailing list > program-team at opensolaris.org > http://opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/program-team -- Derek Cicero Program Manager Solaris Kernel Group, Software Division From Susan.Weber at Sun.COM Tue Nov 15 13:25:26 2005 From: Susan.Weber at Sun.COM (Susan Weber) Date: Tue, 15 Nov 2005 13:25:26 -0800 Subject: [cab-discuss] Re: [program-team] latest TOU In-Reply-To: <437A5100.1000500@sun.com> References: <437A4939.1090504@Sun.COM> <437A5100.1000500@sun.com> Message-ID: <437A5246.6080902@Sun.COM> I don't think you're missing anything. I think we need to remember how this document will be used and avoid superfluous text like this. -Sue Derek Cicero wrote: > While I don't want this process to take longer than it already has, the > following section concerns me: > > 3. You are prohibited from posting or transmitting to or from this Website > any unlawful, threatening, libelous, defamatory, obscene, pornographic, or > profane material, any software virus, worm or other material of a > disruptive > or destructive nature, or any other material that could give rise to any > civil or criminal liability under the law. *We do hope that you are still > able to enjoy using the Website with these restrictions in place.* > > The emphasis is mine. > > It sounds like we are apologizing for not letting people post viruses. > If a users idea of enjoyment is to engage in criminal activity, then I > would say that we hope they *don't* enjoy the site. > > Perhaps I am missing something, but it seems odd. > > Derek > > > Bonnie Corwin wrote: > > >>Attached are text files of the updated TOU and the Copyright Policy. >>These are now separate documents. >> >>Changes to the TOU from the last draft: >> >>- Sentences added to the introduction at the beginning. >> >>- Section 3: Sentence added after first sentence. >> >>- Section 4: Text added to the beginning of the second sentence. >> >>- Section 10: Sentence added at the end. >> >>- Section 12: Sentence added at the end. >> >>- Section 13: Text inserted within the first sentence. Sentence added >>at the end. >> >>No changes to the Copyright Policy. >> >> >>The new TOU and the Copyright Policy will be updated on the website in >>December coincident with an update to the site infrastructure (page >>templates get updated to change these). >> >>Thanks. >> >>Bonnie >> >> >>------------------------------------------------------------------------ >> >>OpenSolaris.org Terms of Use >> >>Please read these terms carefully. We want you to use this site, but >>if you >>use this site in any manner these terms apply to you. We hope you can >>appreciate the need for this document. BY ACCESSING, BROWSING OR USING >>THIS >>WEBSITE, ANY OF ITS SOFTWARE, CONTENT, SERVICES, OR INFORMATION, YOU >>ACKNOWLEDGE THAT YOU HAVE READ, UNDERSTOOD AND AGREE TO BE BOUND BY THESE >>TERMS OF USE. IF YOU DO NOT AGREE TO ALL OF THESE TERMS, DO NOT USE THIS >>WEBSITE. If you are using the Website on behalf of your employer or >>another >>entity, you represent and warrant that you are authorized to accept these >>Terms on your employer's or other entity's behalf, and that your >>employer or >>other entity agrees to indemnify Sun for violations of these Terms of >>Use. >> >>1. This OpenSolaris.org website ("Website") is a service made >>available by >>Sun Microsystems, Inc. ("Host"). All on-line services available via this >>Website ("Services"), and all software, documentation, data, >>information and >>other materials provided on or through this Website ("Content") may be >>used >>only under the following terms and conditions ("Terms of Use") and any >>applicable licenses. >> >>2. Host and the users of this Website ("Users") do not want to receive >>confidential information from you through this Website. ANY >>INFORMATION OR >>MATERIAL YOU SUBMIT TO THIS WEBSITE WILL BE DEEMED NOT TO BE >>CONFIDENTIAL. >>You are responsible for the Content that you submit, and you, not >>Host, have >>full responsibility for that Content, including its legality, >>reliability, >>appropriateness, originality, and related patent and copyright matters. >> >>3. You are prohibited from posting or transmitting to or from this >>Website >>any unlawful, threatening, libelous, defamatory, obscene, >>pornographic, or >>profane material, any software virus, worm or other material of a >>disruptive >>or destructive nature, or any other material that could give rise to any >>civil or criminal liability under the law. We do hope that you are still >>able to enjoy using the Website with these restrictions in place. You are >>further prohibited from using this Website to: (a) transmit spam, bulk or >>unsolicited communications; (b) pretend to be Host or someone else, or >>spoof >>Host's or someone else's identity; (c) forge headers or otherwise >>manipulate >>identifiers (including URLs) in order to disguise the origin of any >>Service >>or Content transmitted via this Website; (d) misrepresent your >>affiliation >>with a person or entity; (e) disrupt the normal flow of dialogue or >>otherwise >>act in a manner that negatively affects Users' ability to use this >>Website; >>(f) engage in activities that would violate any applicable local, state, >>national or international law, or any regulations having the force of >>law, >>including but not limited to attempting to compromise the security of any >>networked account or site, stalking, or making threats of harm; or (g) >>collect or store personal data about other Users unless specifically >>authorized by such Users. >> >>4. The Website may contain links to third-party websites or resources. We >>hope these resources will prove useful, but Host and the Users make no >>representations whatsoever about any other website or external resources >>that you may access through this Website or through a link from this >>Website. >>When you access another website or external resource, even one that may >>contain this Website's name or mark, you acknowledge and agree that it is >>independent and that Host is not responsible or liable for: (a) the >>availability or accuracy of such websites or resources; or (b) the >>content, >>products, or services on or available from such websites or resources. >>Links to such websites or resources do not mean that the Users or Host >>endorse or accept any responsibility for the content on, or the use of, >>such websites or external resources. You acknowledge sole responsibility >>for and assume all risk arising from your use of any such websites or >>resources. >> >>5. Host may run advertisements and promotions from third parties on this >>Website. Any action you may take based upon such advertisements or >>promotions of a third party, and any dealings you may have with such >>third >>party, are solely between you and that third party. Host is not >>responsible >>or liable for any loss or damage of any sort incurred as to result of any >>such actions or dealings or as a result of the presence of any non-Sun >>advertiser on this Website. >> >>6. TO THE FULL EXTENT PERMITTED BY LAW, HOST IS NOT LIABLE TO YOU OR ANY >>OTHER INDIVIDUAL OR ENTITY FOR ANY DIRECT, INDIRECT, INCIDENTAL, >>PUNITIVE, >>SPECIAL OR CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES RELATED TO OR ARISING OUT OF ANY USE OF, >>ACCESS TO, OR INABILITY TO ACCESS THIS WEBSITE, CONTENT, SERVICES, OR OF >>ANY OTHER LINKED WEBSITE OR EXTERNAL RESOURCE INCLUDING, WITHOUT >>LIMITATION, >>ANY LOST PROFITS, LOST SALES, LOST REVENUE, LOSS OF GOODWILL, BUSINESS >>INTERRUPTION, LOSS OF PROGRAMS OR OTHER DATA EVEN IF SUN IS EXPRESSLY >>ADVISED >>OR AWARE OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGES OR LOSSES. YOU ASSUME ALL >>RISK >>FOR ANY DAMAGE TO YOUR COMPUTER SYSTEM OR LOSS OF DATA THAT RESULTS FROM >>OBTAINING ANY CONTENT FROM THE WEBSITE, INCLUDING ANY DAMAGES >>RESULTING FROM >>COMPUTER VIRUSES, WORMS, OR OTHER ITEMS OF A DESTRUCTIVE NATURE. SOME >>JURISDICTIONS DO NOT ALLOW THE EXCLUSION OR LIMITATION OF LIABILITY FOR >>CONSEQUENTIAL OR INCIDENTAL DAMAGES, SO THE ABOVE LIMITATION MAY NOT >>APPLY TO >>YOU. >> >>7. ALL SERVICES AND CONTENT ARE PROVIDED BY HOST ON AN "AS IS", "AS >>AVAILABLE", AND "WITH ALL FAULTS" BASIS ONLY. YOU ASSUME ALL RISK OF >>LOSS OR >>OTHER HARM FOR THE USE THEREOF. HOST PROVIDES NO REPRESENTATIONS, >>CONDITIONS >>AND/OR WARRANTIES, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING, WITHOUT LIMITATION, THE >>IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE, >>MERCHANTABILITY AND >>NONINFRINGEMENT. HOST MAKES NO WARRANTY OR REPRESENTATION THAT: (A) THIS >>WEBSITE WILL BE UNINTERRUPTED, TIMELY, SECURE, OR ERROR-FREE; (B) >>CONTENT, >>SERVICES, OR RESULTS THAT MAY BE OBTAINED FROM THE USE OF THIS WEBSITE >>WILL >>BE ACCURATE OR RELIABLE; (C) THE QUALITY OF ANY PRODUCTS, SERVICES, >>CONTENT, >>INFORMATION, OR OTHER MATERIAL PURCHASED OR OBTAINED FROM THIS WEBSITE >>WILL >>MEET YOUR EXPECTATIONS OR REQUIREMENTS; OR (D) ANY ERRORS IN THIS >>WEBSITE, >>CONTENT OR SERVICES WILL BE CORRECTED. >> >>8. Host reserves the right to investigate complaints or reported >>violations >>of these Terms of Use, and/or applicable licenses and copyright >>information >>on the Website and to take any action Host deems appropriate including, >>without limitation, reporting and providing information of any suspected >>unlawful activity to law enforcement officials, regulators, or other >>third >>parties, including disclosing any information necessary or appropriate to >>such persons or entities relating to user profiles, e-mail addresses, >>usage >>history, posted materials, IP addresses, and traffic information. >> >>9. Host reserves the right to seek all remedies available at law and in >>equity for violations of these Terms of Use, including, but not >>limited to, >>the right to block access from a particular Internet address to this >>Website. >> >>10. This Website may contain other proprietary notices, licenses and >>copyright information, the terms of which must be observed and >>followed by >>you. In the event of any conflict between the license(s) applicable to >>Content or Services and the Terms of Use, the applicable license(s) >>prevail. >>Except as otherwise expressly stated, by providing the Content or >>Services, >>Host does not grant any licenses to any copyrights, patents or any other >>intellectual property rights. For example, large portions of the >>OpenSolaris >>source code are under Sun's Common Development and Distribution License >>(refer to the download page for specific details). >> >>11. The Content provided on this Website is provided under the terms and >>conditions of the applicable license(s) on the Website. Any Content >>provided by you is made available to Users and Host under the terms of >>the >>license(s) applicable to contributing such Content to the Website. For >>all >>Content, including, without limitation, patent, copyright, and other >>intellectual property rights in such Content, owned or licensable by >>you at >>any time without payment, ideas, concepts, know-how and techniques, >>uploaded, >>submitted or otherwise made available by you on the Website or to the >>Users >>and/or Host (collectively "Material"), you grant (or warrant that the >>owner >>of such rights has expressly granted) Host a worldwide, unrestricted, >>royalty-free, fully paid up, irrevocable, perpetual, non-exclusive >>license >>to use, make, reproduce, import, compile, prepare derivative works of, >>publicly display, publicly perform, transmit, sell, distribute, >>sublicense, >>demonstrate, market, disclose, have made, offer for sale, lease, transfer >>or otherwise exploit such Materials, and/or derivative works thereof, and >>authorize third parties to do any, some or all of the foregoing >>including, >>but not limited to, sublicensing others to do any, some or all of the >>foregoing indefinitely. You represent that you are legally entitled to >>grant the rights and privileges conveyed by this section and warrant that >>your Material, to the best of your knowledge, does not violate any other >>party's patents, copyrights, trademarks or other intellectual property >>rights. >> >>12. You acknowledge that Host: (i) does not pre-screen Content; (ii) has >>discretion to determine whether to post or not post Content; and (iii) >>can >>delete, cease providing, or modify the Content at any time for any >>reason. >>The Content on this Website may contain technical inaccuracies or >>typographical errors. Host may also improve or change the Content at any >>time without notice. Host reserves the right, at any time, with or >>without >>cause and without notice, to modify, suspend or terminate in whole or in >>part: (i) the Services, (ii) your use or access to the Services, or (iii) >>both. Host is not liable to you or any third party for any modification >>or deletion of Content, for any posting refusal to post Content, or any >>modification, suspension or termination of Services. Please understand >>that this is an active Website and we expect that the Content is >>likely to >>change. >> >>13. If you choose to register on this Website (and we hope you do), you >>are responsible for providing accurate and complete information about >>yourself during registration and to updating such information to keep it >>current. You accept all risks of unauthorized access to the information >>that you provide. Host may, in its sole discretion, terminate the >>accounts >>or access rights of Users who may have provided inaccurate or incomplete >>information during registration. We hope that, given these restrictions, >>you still take the time to provide a full profile which lets other people >>in the community get to know you. >> >>14. Host is committed to respecting the intellectual property rights of >>others, and we ask our Users to do the same. Host may, in its sole >>discretion, terminate the accounts or access rights of Users who may be >>infringing or may otherwise be violating the intellectual property rights >>of others. If you believe that your work has been copied on this Website >>in a way that constitutes infringement, please contact the copyright >>agent >>as described in the copyright policy set forth in detail elsewhere on the >>Website. The Website, Services, and Content are protected by copyright, >>trademark, and other laws of both the United States and foreign >>countries. >>Except as expressly permitted in these Terms of Use and any applicable >>license, you may not reproduce, modify, or prepare derivative works based >>upon, distribute, sell, transfer, publicly display, publicly perform, >>transmit, or otherwise use the Website, Services, or Content. You may not >>copy or modify the HTML code used to generate web pages on the Website. >> >>15. California law and controlling U.S. Federal law govern any action >>relating to these Terms of Use without regard to any jurisdiction's >>choice >>law rules. You agree to submit all such disputes to the personal and >>exclusive jurisdiction of the state and federal courts located within the >>county of Santa Clara, California USA. >> >>16. Host may amend these Terms of Use at any time by posting the amended >>terms on this Website. By continuing to access or use the Website, >>Services >>or Content after Host makes any such revision, you agree to be bound >>by the >>revised Terms of Use. >> >>17. "Host Trademarks" means all names, marks, brands, logos, designs, >>trade >>dress, slogans and other designations Host uses in connection with its >>products and services. You agree to comply with the Trademark and Logo >>Usage Requirements located at http://www.sun.com/policies/trademarks. You >>may not remove or alter any Host Trademarks, or co-brand your own >>products >>or material with Host Trademarks, without Host's prior written consent. >>You acknowledge Host's rights in Host Trademarks and agree that any >>use of >>Host Trademarks by you shall inure to Host's sole benefit. You agree not >>to incorporate any Host Trademarks into your trademarks, service marks, >>company names, Internet addresses, domain names, or any other similar >>designations, for use on or in connection with computer or >>Internet-related >>products, services or technologies. >> >>18. You consent to the collection, processing and storage by Host of your >>personal information in accordance with the terms of Host's Privacy >>Policy, >>which is available at http://www.sun.com/privacy. You agree to comply >>with >>all applicable laws and regulations, and the terms of that privacy >>policy, >>with respect to any access, use and/or submission by you of any personal >>information in connection with this Website. >> >>Notwithstanding anything to the contrary, if you choose to participate in >>an open source or community source process on this Website, whether by >>contributing code, participating in mailing lists or sending e-mails, >>your >>participation is public and your privacy cannot be protected to the >>extent >>that you provide personal information such as your e-mail address. To the >>extent that you contribute code, information, articles or other >>material to >>this Website containing personal information, Host cannot protect the >>privacy of such personal information and such material may be provided to >>others under the Terms of Use and applicable licenses. >> >>19. The Website may contain forward-looking statements within the meaning >>of the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995. Such forward- >>looking statements may include statements regarding market >>expectations and >>opportunities, expectations about financials, research and development >>and >>strategies, statements concerning Host's roadmaps, market share >>growth, and >>product and service development and introduction, and our continuous >>evaluation of the competitiveness of our product and service offerings. >>These forward-looking statements are just predictions and involve >>risks and >>uncertainties. Actual results may differ materially from results >>discussed >>in the forward-looking statements. Factors that may cause such a >>difference include risks related to adverse changes in general economic >>conditions, failure to reduce costs, lack of success in technical >>advancements, the timely development, production and acceptance of new >>products and services, and Sun's ability to compete in a highly >>competitive >>and rapidly changing marketplace. For a detailed listing of the potential >>factors affecting Host's business and these forward-looking statements, >>please refer to Host's periodic reports on Forms 10-Q and 10-K that are >>filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission. >> >>20. Any express waiver or failure to exercise promptly any right under >>the >>Terms of Use will not create a continuing waiver or any expectation of >>non- >>enforcement. If any provision of the Terms of Use is held invalid by any >>law or regulation of any government, or by any court or arbitrator, such >>provision will be replaced with a new provision that accomplishes the >>original business purpose, and the other provisions of the Terms of Use >>will remain in full force and effect. >> >>21. In addition to the Terms of Use and unless otherwise noted, the >>standard >>Host terms and conditions of sale in your jurisdiction govern >>purchases you >>make through the Website, unless you have in effect a separate valid >>written >>purchase or license agreement with Host for the products or services >>purchased, in which case that separate agreement governs, and in cases of >>conflict, prevails. >> >> >> >>------------------------------------------------------------------------ >> >>Copyright Policy >> >>Sun Microsystems, Inc. ("Sun") is committed to respecting others' >>intellectual property rights, and we ask that users of this Website do >>the >>same. Sun may, in its sole discretion and in appropriate circumstances, >>terminate the accounts or access rights of users who violate others' >>intellectual property rights. >> >>Pursuant to 17 United States Code 512(c)(2) (Digital Millennium Copyright >>Act of 1998), Sun's designated agent for notice of alleged copyright >>infringement appearing on the OpenSolaris.org website ("Website") is: >> >>Copyright Counsel, Sun Microsystems Inc. >>4150 Network Circle, Santa Clara, CA 95054 >>Ph: 650-786-3142 >>Fax: 650-786-2325 >>Email: copyrights at sun.com >> >>Filing a notice of infringement with Sun requires compliance with the >>requirements specified in Title II of the Digital Millennium Copyright >>Act >>of 1998. The text of this statute can be found at the U.S. Copyright >>Office website, www.copyright.gov. If you believe that your work has been >>copied in a way that constitutes copyright infringement on this Website, >>please deliver the following information to Sun's Copyright Agent: >> >>1. An electronic or physical signature of the person authorized to act on >>behalf of the copyright owner; >>2. A description of the copyrighted work that you claim has been >>infringed; >>3. A description of the material that you claim is infringing; >>4. A description of the location on the Website of the material that you >>claim is infringing; >>5. Your address, telephone number and e-mail address so that we can >>contact >>you; >>6. A statement by you that you have a good faith belief that the >>disputed use >>is not authorized by the copyright owner, its agent or the law; and >>7. A statement by you, made under penalty of perjury, that the >>information in >>your notice to Sun is accurate and that you are the copyright owner or >>authorized to act on behalf of the copyright owner. >> >> >>------------------------------------------------------------------------ >> >>_______________________________________________ >>program-team mailing list >>program-team at opensolaris.org >>http://opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/program-team > > > > > -- Sue Weber, Program Manager-Solaris Documentation Nevada, Express, Trusted and OpenSolaris (650) 786-5467 x85467 susan.weber at sun.com From michelle.olson at sun.com Tue Nov 15 13:37:51 2005 From: michelle.olson at sun.com (Michelle Olson) Date: Tue, 15 Nov 2005 13:37:51 PST Subject: [cab-discuss] Re: Development process draft release In-Reply-To: <20051107202650.GA233552@eng.sun.com> Message-ID: <14309421.1132090701513.JavaMail.suncom@oss1> Hi all, Great work on this document, it's a lot of information to capture in one piece and you've done a really nice job with it. In general, I think some additional navigation links from the high-level sections to the low-level sections would be useful in the HTML version. Here are my specific comments, mostly related to docs because that is my area of interest: [MO-0] In chapter2, Fundamentals; Maintainability, add 'man pages, developer documentation, user guides, and online help.' after design documents. [MO-1] Add a technical writer at the Implementation stage outlined in section: 4 Development Process. This writer would take the draft man pages and working code to begin work on the developer docs. This writer should be a sponsor-level participant. [MO-2] In this same section, add a technical writer to the Integrate phase. We also need the man page gatekeeper/sponsor here. I think that User Documentation is missing and should be added under Developer Documentation. [MO-3] Is there a need for another step to maintain what is intergrated? This maintenance step would include addressing anything unforseen that might surface from a project putback, or any needed improvements that are discovered after a project putback. In addition, any requests for additional documentation, versioning, and localization of documentation cycles would be addressed in a maintenance phase. As more information about a project putback is available, this cycle would capture and communicate new info in new languages and formats. This ties into the 'Maintainability' section of the Fundamentals chapter, but it is missing from the flow diagram. [MO-4] In the design flow diagram, we need to add a cycle for Create/Revise Doc Plan-->Review Doc Plan-->Doc Plan Approved? This should come before Produce Schedule. Also, add a sentence stating that "A documentation plan, however minimal or complex, must be created and approved also." [MO-5] In the implementation flow diagram, change 'Is documentation needed?' to 'Write Documentation' (box) followed by another box for 'Identify Documentation Reviewers' (technical and editorial). The reviewers might be technical experts in addition to the sponsor and there might be editorial experts other than the technical writing sponsor. [MO-6] In the integration flow, change 'Review Documentation' to 'Test Documentation' because this phase is a publication/doclint/putback check, not what we normally refer to as a 'review'. We should add some information to the last sentence that follows the TOI piece, stating that 'man pages, updates to developer docs, user guides, and online help are published accordingly for global consumption on a formal documentation site, via the documentation community, or in conjunction with the SunOS man pages or application online help. ' [MO-7] Add a new flow for Maintenance that allows for new improvements to an existing project for security, performance, serviceability, use cases unforseen, new languages, etc. The maintenance flow must have a starting point and I see this as following Integration, but it models the Implementation flow you already have in the document. So, we might have: Integration Flow--->Revise Code/Policies-->Pass Unit/Pre-int Tests-->Review Ready?-yes->Integrate Flow . . Revise Docs --> Test Docs . . Request Code Reviewers . . Revise Test Suites This is an iterative loop that begins and ends with the Integrate Flow and it represents what you describe earlier in the document about how software continues to evolve as additional needs and requirements are discovered. Thoughts? Thanks, Michelle Olson OpenSolaris Doc Community From Jim.Grisanzio at Sun.COM Tue Nov 15 13:40:51 2005 From: Jim.Grisanzio at Sun.COM (Jim Grisanzio) Date: Tue, 15 Nov 2005 13:40:51 -0800 Subject: [cab-discuss] latest TOU In-Reply-To: <437A4939.1090504@Sun.COM> References: <437A4939.1090504@Sun.COM> Message-ID: <437A55E3.6050304@Sun.COM> Bonnie Corwin wrote On 11/15/05 12:46,: > 3. You are prohibited from posting or transmitting to or from this Website > any unlawful, threatening, libelous, defamatory, obscene, pornographic, or > profane material, any software virus, worm or other material of a disruptive > or destructive nature, or any other material that could give rise to any > civil or criminal liability under the law. We do hope that you are still > able to enjoy using the Website with these restrictions in place. Can we please remove "We do hope that you are still able to enjoy using the Website with these restrictions in place"? It's odd to apologize for not allowing criminals to mess up our site. Is this Sun legal language? > 13. If you choose to register on this Website (and we hope you do), you > are responsible for providing accurate and complete information about > yourself during registration and to updating such information to keep it > current. You accept all risks of unauthorized access to the information > that you provide. Host may, in its sole discretion, terminate the accounts > or access rights of Users who may have provided inaccurate or incomplete > information during registration. We hope that, given these restrictions, > you still take the time to provide a full profile which lets other people > in the community get to know you. I'm not sure this last sentence above is necessary, either. People know that a TOU is a legal document, and I doubt developers will read this as a community building exercise. It seems out of place with the legal language in the rest of the document. And the "we hope you do" in the first sentence seems extremely out of place as well. Jim From Bonnie.Corwin at Sun.COM Tue Nov 15 15:05:18 2005 From: Bonnie.Corwin at Sun.COM (Bonnie Corwin) Date: Tue, 15 Nov 2005 16:05:18 -0700 Subject: [cab-discuss] Re: [program-team] latest TOU In-Reply-To: <20051115224016.GA29942@barman.uk.sun.com> References: <437A4939.1090504@Sun.COM> <20051115224016.GA29942@barman.uk.sun.com> Message-ID: <437A69AE.1090901@Sun.COM> John Levon wrote On 11/15/05 15:40,: > On Tue, Nov 15, 2005 at 01:46:49PM -0700, Bonnie Corwin wrote: > > >>Sun Microsystems, Inc. ("Host"). All on-line services available via this >>Website ("Services"), and all software, documentation, data, information and >>other materials provided on or through this Website ("Content") may be used >>only under the following terms and conditions ("Terms of Use") and any >>applicable licenses. > > >>3. You are prohibited from posting or transmitting to or from this Website >>any unlawful, threatening, libelous, defamatory, obscene, pornographic, or >>profane material, any software virus, worm or other material of a disruptive >>or destructive nature, or any other material that could give rise to any >>civil or criminal liability under the law. > > > So if I read a defamatory message someone else has posted, it appears I can no > longer use the site. Something's wrong here. Sorry if I'm being dense, but I'm not following. How would just reading a defamatory message create a problem? How would anyone know you had even read it? Bonnie From Alan.Coopersmith at Sun.COM Tue Nov 15 13:55:20 2005 From: Alan.Coopersmith at Sun.COM (Alan Coopersmith) Date: Tue, 15 Nov 2005 13:55:20 -0800 Subject: [cab-discuss] Re: [program-team] latest TOU In-Reply-To: <437A5100.1000500@sun.com> References: <437A4939.1090504@Sun.COM> <437A5100.1000500@sun.com> Message-ID: <437A5948.1060808@sun.com> Derek Cicero wrote: > While I don't want this process to take longer than it already has, the > following section concerns me: > > 3. You are prohibited from posting or transmitting to or from this Website > any unlawful, threatening, libelous, defamatory, obscene, pornographic, or > profane material, any software virus, worm or other material of a > disruptive > or destructive nature, or any other material that could give rise to any > civil or criminal liability under the law. *We do hope that you are still > able to enjoy using the Website with these restrictions in place.* > > The emphasis is mine. > > It sounds like we are apologizing for not letting people post viruses. > If a users idea of enjoyment is to engage in criminal activity, then I > would say that we hope they *don't* enjoy the site. Not all the prohibited actions there are criminal - some users will find the other restrictions (profane speech, etc.) more stifling. Technically, I don't think I can post the source to the xscreensaver used in JDS under those TOU's for instance. (Some of the comments from the original open source author would likely be considered either profane or defamatory.) -- -Alan Coopersmith- alan.coopersmith at sun.com Sun Microsystems, Inc. - X Window System Engineering From john.levon at sun.com Tue Nov 15 14:40:16 2005 From: john.levon at sun.com (John Levon) Date: Tue, 15 Nov 2005 22:40:16 +0000 Subject: [cab-discuss] Re: [program-team] latest TOU In-Reply-To: <437A4939.1090504@Sun.COM> References: <437A4939.1090504@Sun.COM> Message-ID: <20051115224016.GA29942@barman.uk.sun.com> On Tue, Nov 15, 2005 at 01:46:49PM -0700, Bonnie Corwin wrote: > Sun Microsystems, Inc. ("Host"). All on-line services available via this > Website ("Services"), and all software, documentation, data, information and > other materials provided on or through this Website ("Content") may be used > only under the following terms and conditions ("Terms of Use") and any > applicable licenses. > 3. You are prohibited from posting or transmitting to or from this Website > any unlawful, threatening, libelous, defamatory, obscene, pornographic, or > profane material, any software virus, worm or other material of a disruptive > or destructive nature, or any other material that could give rise to any > civil or criminal liability under the law. So if I read a defamatory message someone else has posted, it appears I can no longer use the site. Something's wrong here. regards, john From Karyn.Ritter at Sun.COM Tue Nov 15 15:24:58 2005 From: Karyn.Ritter at Sun.COM (Karyn Ritter) Date: Tue, 15 Nov 2005 15:24:58 -0800 Subject: [cab-discuss] Re: [program-team] latest TOU In-Reply-To: <437A69AE.1090901@Sun.COM> References: <437A4939.1090504@Sun.COM> <20051115224016.GA29942@barman.uk.sun.com> <437A69AE.1090901@Sun.COM> Message-ID: <437A6E4A.9080605@sun.com> I think it is the "transmitting from" portion of # 3 that John is calling attention to. I'm sure he'll clarify. :) >>>3. You are prohibited from posting or transmitting to or from this Website >>>any unlawful, threatening, libelous, defamatory, obscene, pornographic, or >>>profane material, any software virus, worm or other material of a disruptive >>>or destructive nature, or any other material that could give rise to any >>>civil or criminal liability under the law. >> Thanks, Karyn Bonnie Corwin wrote: > John Levon wrote On 11/15/05 15:40,: > >>On Tue, Nov 15, 2005 at 01:46:49PM -0700, Bonnie Corwin wrote: >> >> >> >>>Sun Microsystems, Inc. ("Host"). All on-line services available via this >>>Website ("Services"), and all software, documentation, data, information and >>>other materials provided on or through this Website ("Content") may be used >>>only under the following terms and conditions ("Terms of Use") and any >>>applicable licenses. >> >> >>>3. You are prohibited from posting or transmitting to or from this Website >>>any unlawful, threatening, libelous, defamatory, obscene, pornographic, or >>>profane material, any software virus, worm or other material of a disruptive >>>or destructive nature, or any other material that could give rise to any >>>civil or criminal liability under the law. >> >> >>So if I read a defamatory message someone else has posted, it appears I can no >>longer use the site. Something's wrong here. > > > Sorry if I'm being dense, but I'm not following. How would just reading > a defamatory message create a problem? How would anyone know you had > even read it? > > Bonnie > > _______________________________________________ > cab-discuss mailing list > cab-discuss at opensolaris.org From sommerfeld at sun.com Tue Nov 15 15:26:18 2005 From: sommerfeld at sun.com (Bill Sommerfeld) Date: Tue, 15 Nov 2005 18:26:18 -0500 Subject: [cab-discuss] Re: [program-team] latest TOU In-Reply-To: <437A69AE.1090901@Sun.COM> References: <437A4939.1090504@Sun.COM> <20051115224016.GA29942@barman.uk.sun.com> <437A69AE.1090901@Sun.COM> Message-ID: <1132097177.3263.888.camel@thunk> On Tue, 2005-11-15 at 18:05, Bonnie Corwin wrote: > Sorry if I'm being dense, but I'm not following. How would just reading > a defamatory message create a problem? a literal interpretation of the terms of use says that you lose access if you violate the TOU, and that you violate the TOU if you transfer "bad stuff" to *OR FROM* the website. the OR FROM makes no sense and needs to disappear. > How would anyone know you had even read it? webservers usually keep access logs. But then, I remain annoyed by the notion that merely fetching static pages from a website makes me a party to a contract with nontrivial provisions. - Bill From John.Plocher at Sun.Com Tue Nov 15 15:41:31 2005 From: John.Plocher at Sun.Com (John Plocher) Date: Tue, 15 Nov 2005 15:41:31 -0800 Subject: [cab-discuss] Re: [program-team] latest TOU In-Reply-To: <437A69AE.1090901@Sun.COM> References: <437A4939.1090504@Sun.COM> <20051115224016.GA29942@barman.uk.sun.com> <437A69AE.1090901@Sun.COM> Message-ID: <437A722B.7000902@Sun.Com> Bonnie Corwin wrote: > Sorry if I'm being dense, but I'm not following. How would just reading > a defamatory message create a problem? You are prohibited from ... transmitting ... from this Website any ... defamatory ... material. Reading a message in a browser from a forum certainly qualifies for "transmitting from this Website", so if the message violates ther TOU and I read it, poof, I'm stuck in a legal black hole. Never mind that, by definition, you must "use the site" to be able to read the TOU, an act that is prohibited by the TOU if you don't agree to its terms.... And, since those of us arguing about its wording clearly don't agree with the specific terms of the current TOU, does that mean that we can't use the site either? :-) :-) :-) -John