From sch at eng.sun.com Tue Aug 1 22:52:50 2006 From: sch at eng.sun.com (Stephen Hahn) Date: Tue, 1 Aug 2006 22:52:50 -0700 Subject: [cab-discuss] "Review Message-ID: <20060802055250.GA134475@eng.sun.com> Article II outlines the Purpose of the Community. As I mentioned last night, the second paragraph contains difficult text regarding resource allocation: "Feedback has been very strong about the ambiguity of the term resources, as applied to any object or service that Sun currently owns/purchases/retains. One suggestion was to rephrase in terms of 'community resources', although I'm not sure that's much better." One alternative would be to instead focus this paragraph on authority over the processes, rather than the specific resources. Such a change might end up endorsing the draft development process prematurely, but perhaps there are some widely held principles that could be expressed here. Stylistic comments expressed a preference for more definitions in this Article, for instance a more specific definition of what or who composes the OpenSolaris Community. (It was also pointed out that the Charter does not define the Community.) From sch at eng.sun.com Tue Aug 1 22:52:51 2006 From: sch at eng.sun.com (Stephen Hahn) Date: Tue, 1 Aug 2006 22:52:51 -0700 Subject: [cab-discuss] "Review Message-ID: <20060802055251.GA134492@eng.sun.com> Article III is concerned with Membership, and necessarily introduces Groups (which generate the various levels of contributor). The terminology change from Communities to Groups caught a couple of the reviewers off guard, but not those less associated with the specific history of the Community so far. The length of the term of Contributorship (3.3.2) was a concern, on two parts. First, there was some belief that a Contributor should be able to terminate his or her association with the Community, rather than having the association be permanent. Second, there was strong comments (which have come up in earlier comments) that some disciplinary action that leads to expulsion be possible. This would affect 3.3.2 and 3.5, as well as 3.7. (And last night, as I noted, "[a]lmost all feedback has asked for some expansion of the disciplinary process around members. One puzzle was that a Core Contributor could vote and run for office, but be denied access to the forums where campaigning is expected to take place. So we need a mechanism for expelling members and removing their voting rights that meets Roy's criterion of not being exclusively a Board power." Karyn asked a related question regarding this restriction; Roy noted that all mechanisms would be closed, but for the Members' Meeting.) In the mail thread, Karyn also asked if Groups needed a disciplinary mechanism for their own Core Contributors. I recall that the Apache consensus guidelines had some mechanism for this case, so we should probably discuss. It was also pointed out that there is no OGB oversight of Core Contributor creation by a Group, which can lead to ballot box stuffing. We need to discuss throttling; I know we have had previous discussion to try and stabilize the rolls some number of days prior to the election, but these were probably insufficient. One other question was whether 3.4 meant only "projects" or instead "the initial Groups (previously Communities)". Small corrections: 3.2 "by applicable law or regulation" -> "by applicable law, rule or regulation" 3.3 "classes of registered persons" -> "levels of registration" ("class" has pejorative meaning when applied to "persons"; may be offensive (or at least inaccurate) in some cultures.) 3.3.4 "accepting new grants." -> "accepting new grants of Core Contributor status." From sch at eng.sun.com Tue Aug 1 22:52:51 2006 From: sch at eng.sun.com (Stephen Hahn) Date: Tue, 1 Aug 2006 22:52:51 -0700 Subject: [cab-discuss] "Review Message-ID: <20060802055251.GA134509@eng.sun.com> Article IV is concerned with Meetings of Members. As a result, it covers the notion of Quorum, Voting and Voting Rights, Proxies, and meeting specifics. Most of this text has gone uncommented in mail/forum and teleconferences, except one or two minor points I asked about... Private comments are minimal, and mostly focused on clarity. Section 4.5 on Notice of Adjournment is unclear on whether the resumed meeting must be announced or not. (I think it allows the new details to be only part of the record.) Comments suggest that a notice be clearly required, similar to the initial announcement of a meeting. Section 4.9 on Member Quorum. The last sentence caught some reviewers: do additional new members count towards the quorum, or not? From sch at eng.sun.com Tue Aug 1 22:52:52 2006 From: sch at eng.sun.com (Stephen Hahn) Date: Tue, 1 Aug 2006 22:52:52 -0700 Subject: [cab-discuss] "Review Message-ID: <20060802055252.GA134526@eng.sun.com> Article V describes the Governing Board itself. Two points were made in private review: 5.1 should be clear about the Powers/OGB exercise of authority being "in accordance with the Charter", re-emphasizing Charter-Constitution precedence. For 5.11 "Officers", it was noted that the Secretary's maintenance of the Member database requires some policy regarding privacy and confidentiality, specifically with respect to who has access. Minor corrections 5.3 "must be closed" -> "must be completed" (suggested) From sch at eng.sun.com Tue Aug 1 22:52:52 2006 From: sch at eng.sun.com (Stephen Hahn) Date: Tue, 1 Aug 2006 22:52:52 -0700 Subject: [cab-discuss] "Review Message-ID: <20060802055252.GA134543@eng.sun.com> Article VII is on Group Voting Procedures. Roy answered my concerns about the Constitution defining a specific form in the mail/forum thread, and justified a common procedure as shared culture (my term). No other comments on this Article were made publicly. Minor private comments included noting that Article VII is stylistically different from the rest of the Constitution. Stylistic suggestions follow: 7.1 "They teach how" -> "The Group voting procedures determine how future conflicts will be resolved so that..." 7.1 Drop last sentence. 7.3 "their opinion" -> "his or her opinion" 7.3 "set in stone" -> "final" (or longer, non-idiomatic text) 7.3 Correct sentence beginning "In general, this vote..." to "A +1 vote indicates that the voter is in favor of implementation of the proposed action." 7.3 "they don't agree" -> "he or she does not agree" From sch at eng.sun.com Tue Aug 1 22:52:52 2006 From: sch at eng.sun.com (Stephen Hahn) Date: Tue, 1 Aug 2006 22:52:52 -0700 Subject: [cab-discuss] "Review Message-ID: <20060802055252.GA134560@eng.sun.com> Article VIII concerns Amendment of the Constitution. I know we are still discussing initial ratification, and are caught between wanting to successfully ratify and wanting the ratification process and the amendment process to be consistent. As far as I can tell comparing my notes with the mail/forum posts, most of the past discussion on Article VIII has occurred during OGB conference calls. This discussion has included whether or not amendments should require a supermajority of some kind, which was raised again in the review comments I've received privately. Additional comments include a specific concern that Article VIII explicitly mention that the Constitution as Amended be "in complete compliance" with the Charter. From sch at eng.sun.com Tue Aug 1 22:55:15 2006 From: sch at eng.sun.com (Stephen Hahn) Date: Tue, 1 Aug 2006 22:55:15 -0700 Subject: [cab-discuss] Review comments on Article 2 Message-ID: <20060802055515.GA134819@eng.sun.com> Article II outlines the Purpose of the Community. As I mentioned last night, the second paragraph contains difficult text regarding resource allocation: "Feedback has been very strong about the ambiguity of the term resources, as applied to any object or service that Sun currently owns/purchases/retains. One suggestion was to rephrase in terms of 'community resources', although I'm not sure that's much better." One alternative would be to instead focus this paragraph on authority over the processes, rather than the specific resources. Such a change might end up endorsing the draft development process prematurely, but perhaps there are some widely held principles that could be expressed here. Stylistic comments expressed a preference for more definitions in this Article, for instance a more specific definition of what or who composes the OpenSolaris Community. (It was also pointed out that the Charter does not define the Community.) From sch at eng.sun.com Tue Aug 1 22:55:16 2006 From: sch at eng.sun.com (Stephen Hahn) Date: Tue, 1 Aug 2006 22:55:16 -0700 Subject: [cab-discuss] Review comments on Article 3 Message-ID: <20060802055515.GA134836@eng.sun.com> Article III is concerned with Membership, and necessarily introduces Groups (which generate the various levels of contributor). The terminology change from Communities to Groups caught a couple of the reviewers off guard, but not those less associated with the specific history of the Community so far. The length of the term of Contributorship (3.3.2) was a concern, on two parts. First, there was some belief that a Contributor should be able to terminate his or her association with the Community, rather than having the association be permanent. Second, there was strong comments (which have come up in earlier comments) that some disciplinary action that leads to expulsion be possible. This would affect 3.3.2 and 3.5, as well as 3.7. (And last night, as I noted, "[a]lmost all feedback has asked for some expansion of the disciplinary process around members. One puzzle was that a Core Contributor could vote and run for office, but be denied access to the forums where campaigning is expected to take place. So we need a mechanism for expelling members and removing their voting rights that meets Roy's criterion of not being exclusively a Board power." Karyn asked a related question regarding this restriction; Roy noted that all mechanisms would be closed, but for the Members' Meeting.) In the mail thread, Karyn also asked if Groups needed a disciplinary mechanism for their own Core Contributors. I recall that the Apache consensus guidelines had some mechanism for this case, so we should probably discuss. It was also pointed out that there is no OGB oversight of Core Contributor creation by a Group, which can lead to ballot box stuffing. We need to discuss throttling; I know we have had previous discussion to try and stabilize the rolls some number of days prior to the election, but these were probably insufficient. One other question was whether 3.4 meant only "projects" or instead "the initial Groups (previously Communities)". Small corrections: 3.2 "by applicable law or regulation" -> "by applicable law, rule or regulation" 3.3 "classes of registered persons" -> "levels of registration" ("class" has pejorative meaning when applied to "persons"; may be offensive (or at least inaccurate) in some cultures.) 3.3.4 "accepting new grants." -> "accepting new grants of Core Contributor status." From sch at eng.sun.com Tue Aug 1 22:55:16 2006 From: sch at eng.sun.com (Stephen Hahn) Date: Tue, 1 Aug 2006 22:55:16 -0700 Subject: [cab-discuss] Review comments on Article 4 Message-ID: <20060802055516.GA134853@eng.sun.com> Article IV is concerned with Meetings of Members. As a result, it covers the notion of Quorum, Voting and Voting Rights, Proxies, and meeting specifics. Most of this text has gone uncommented in mail/forum and teleconferences, except one or two minor points I asked about... Private comments are minimal, and mostly focused on clarity. Section 4.5 on Notice of Adjournment is unclear on whether the resumed meeting must be announced or not. (I think it allows the new details to be only part of the record.) Comments suggest that a notice be clearly required, similar to the initial announcement of a meeting. Section 4.9 on Member Quorum. The last sentence caught some reviewers: do additional new members count towards the quorum, or not? From sch at eng.sun.com Tue Aug 1 22:55:16 2006 From: sch at eng.sun.com (Stephen Hahn) Date: Tue, 1 Aug 2006 22:55:16 -0700 Subject: [cab-discuss] Review comments on Article 5 Message-ID: <20060802055516.GA134870@eng.sun.com> Article V describes the Governing Board itself. Two points were made in private review: 5.1 should be clear about the Powers/OGB exercise of authority being "in accordance with the Charter", re-emphasizing Charter-Constitution precedence. For 5.11 "Officers", it was noted that the Secretary's maintenance of the Member database requires some policy regarding privacy and confidentiality, specifically with respect to who has access. Minor corrections 5.3 "must be closed" -> "must be completed" (suggested) From sch at eng.sun.com Tue Aug 1 22:55:16 2006 From: sch at eng.sun.com (Stephen Hahn) Date: Tue, 1 Aug 2006 22:55:16 -0700 Subject: [cab-discuss] Review comments on Article 7 Message-ID: <20060802055516.GA134887@eng.sun.com> Article VII is on Group Voting Procedures. Roy answered my concerns about the Constitution defining a specific form in the mail/forum thread, and justified a common procedure as shared culture (my term). No other comments on this Article were made publicly. Minor private comments included noting that Article VII is stylistically different from the rest of the Constitution. Stylistic suggestions follow: 7.1 "They teach how" -> "The Group voting procedures determine how future conflicts will be resolved so that..." 7.1 Drop last sentence. 7.3 "their opinion" -> "his or her opinion" 7.3 "set in stone" -> "final" (or longer, non-idiomatic text) 7.3 Correct sentence beginning "In general, this vote..." to "A +1 vote indicates that the voter is in favor of implementation of the proposed action." 7.3 "they don't agree" -> "he or she does not agree" From sch at eng.sun.com Tue Aug 1 22:55:17 2006 From: sch at eng.sun.com (Stephen Hahn) Date: Tue, 1 Aug 2006 22:55:17 -0700 Subject: [cab-discuss] Review comments on Article 8 Message-ID: <20060802055517.GA134904@eng.sun.com> Article VIII concerns Amendment of the Constitution. I know we are still discussing initial ratification, and are caught between wanting to successfully ratify and wanting the ratification process and the amendment process to be consistent. As far as I can tell comparing my notes with the mail/forum posts, most of the past discussion on Article VIII has occurred during OGB conference calls. This discussion has included whether or not amendments should require a supermajority of some kind, which was raised again in the review comments I've received privately. Additional comments include a specific concern that Article VIII explicitly mention that the Constitution as Amended be "in complete compliance" with the Charter. From sch at eng.sun.com Tue Aug 1 22:57:59 2006 From: sch at eng.sun.com (Stephen Hahn) Date: Tue, 1 Aug 2006 22:57:59 -0700 Subject: [cab-discuss] Feedback update In-Reply-To: <20060801045032.GA126250@eng.sun.com> References: <20060727223647.GA114332@eng.sun.com> <20060801045032.GA126250@eng.sun.com> Message-ID: <20060802055759.GA134921@eng.sun.com> * Stephen Hahn [2006-07-31 21:50]: > I will finish the summaries on these two as soon as I can tomorrow, > and then will send the rest later on--but begin thinking about these > two thornier aspects, please. I've just sent out summary messages to initiate discussion threads for the Articles I have specific comments for, across notes, forum/mail, wiki, and private messages. (Please ignore the first batch with subject, "\"Review"--dropped an echo(1) too soon; my bad.) - Stephen -- Stephen Hahn, PhD Solaris Kernel Development, Sun Microsystems stephen.hahn at sun.com http://blogs.sun.com/sch/ From Glynn.Foster at Sun.COM Wed Aug 2 10:50:42 2006 From: Glynn.Foster at Sun.COM (Glynn Foster) Date: Wed, 02 Aug 2006 10:50:42 -0700 Subject: [cab-discuss] Review comments on Article 3 In-Reply-To: <20060802055515.GA134836@eng.sun.com> References: <20060802055515.GA134836@eng.sun.com> Message-ID: <44D0E5F2.5040902@sun.com> Hey, Stephen Hahn wrote: > Article III is concerned with Membership, and necessarily introduces > Groups (which generate the various levels of contributor). The > terminology change from Communities to Groups caught a couple of the > reviewers off guard, but not those less associated with the specific > history of the Community so far. Groups does seem like a strange term. I prefer 'teams' - feels more positive, working towards a common goal. > The length of the term of Contributorship (3.3.2) was a concern, on > two parts. First, there was some belief that a Contributor should be > able to terminate his or her association with the Community, rather > than having the association be permanent. Second, there was strong > comments (which have come up in earlier comments) that some > disciplinary action that leads to expulsion be possible. This would > affect 3.3.2 and 3.5, as well as 3.7. I'm not sure I agree with this need to over complicate things. We have Google now, and for all intensive purposes there will always be that association. > (And last night, as I noted, "[a]lmost all feedback has asked for > some expansion of the disciplinary process around members. One > puzzle was that a Core Contributor could vote and run for office, but > be denied access to the forums where campaigning is expected to take > place. So we need a mechanism for expelling members and removing > their voting rights that meets Roy's criterion of not being > exclusively a Board power." Karyn asked a related question regarding > this restriction; Roy noted that all mechanisms would be closed, but > for the Members' Meeting.) Again, I disagree with the need for an explicit disciplinary process. We're a community, and by that understanding anyone should be free to do and say what they like. If they don't agree with the general consensus of the community, then they will be usually ignored and separated out. Something like Ubuntu's code of conduct [which a few other communities are starting to adopt], seems like a nicer way of approaching it - though obviously very less formal. http://www.ubuntu.com/community/conduct Feels like we shouldn't stump the growth of the organic community we're trying to encourage. > It was also pointed out that there is no OGB oversight of Core > Contributor creation by a Group, which can lead to ballot box > stuffing. We need to discuss throttling; I know we have had previous > discussion to try and stabilize the rolls some number of days prior > to the election, but these were probably insufficient. That's getting a little bit too close towards the conspiracy theories already isn't it? Where's the trust? Glynn From Sara.Dornsife at Sun.COM Mon Aug 7 12:09:18 2006 From: Sara.Dornsife at Sun.COM (Sara Dornsife) Date: Mon, 07 Aug 2006 14:09:18 -0500 Subject: [cab-discuss] OGB committee to determine Sun TM usage In-Reply-To: References: <44BC3C0F.2010802@sun.com> <583870C9-3B28-4C1C-B7B1-F18F82644028@gbiv.com> <44CD4F93.9090903@sun.com> Message-ID: <44D78FDE.7070805@sun.com> I need a final decision on this by end of day Wed (PT) so that we can complete the license. I need know who is making the TM decision since it is called out specifically in the license. I will also need to know who specifically is on this sub-committee so that I can send the draft of the license to them for review. Thanks for the help. Sara Rich Teer wrote: > On Sun, 30 Jul 2006, Glynn Foster wrote: > >> I agree, although with the minor nit pick of calling it a delegated >> 'working group' rather than a 'community' [1] - does it really have to >> have OGB members on it? > > Not sure, but the committee definately should have non-Sun people on > it, and in the OpenSolaris world as it stands right now, I think OGB > members are probably best for consideration of that role. > From al at logical-approach.com Mon Aug 7 15:42:22 2006 From: al at logical-approach.com (Al Hopper) Date: Mon, 7 Aug 2006 17:42:22 -0500 (CDT) Subject: [cab-discuss] Re: [program-team] developer growth goals In-Reply-To: <44D7B694.60503@sun.com> References: <44D6D817.3060400@sun.com> <44D6F5F7.4000507@Sun.COM> <44D7A76A.3000906@sun.com> <20060807211710.GA27142@sun.com> <44D7B694.60503@sun.com> Message-ID: On Mon, 7 Aug 2006, Alan Coopersmith wrote: > Keith M Wesolowski wrote: > > If the goal is to provide evidence of openness rather than measure > > something that can be used by executives to determine the success of > > the program, we would get a lot more by doing very simple things like > > finally getting onnv-gate-notify out in the open or publicly flogging > > the next 10 people to use "see comments" as a bug description than we > > Can we set a goal of "Less than X% of new bugs in categories displayed on > bugs.os.o have no description other than 'See comments' or the equivalent?" Does it not make sense to involve the CAB/OGB in this decision making process(es)? Especially when it comes to setting goals for OpenSolaris community participation and development. How could the greater OpenSolaris community be a willing participant in terms of attaining Suns' specific goals and objectives when its likely that only a small minority of the community membership are subscribed to the "program-team" list? Let me put this more bluntly. Let's say, for example, that Sun senior management decided, for arguments sake, that the number of community contributed bug fixes was the #1 most important metric that they would use as the "metric du jour" to determine the perceived "value add" of the OpenSolaris project. If the community at large understands this, then their energy could be directed and prioritized towards meeting that goal - especially if they understood that meeting/exceeding that goal could determine the (Sun management) committment to the continued funding/good-health/resource-level-commit to OpenSolaris. I've picked a somewhat random time to comment on this thread and the recipients on the To: and Cc: lines should not interpret this as having any significance or take it personally in any way. My sense is that the discussion is too "Sun only" and in danger of meeting the criteria of "people on glass houses....." type mindset. 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 OpenSolaris Governing Board (OGB) Member - Feb 2006 From rich.teer at rite-group.com Mon Aug 7 16:00:27 2006 From: rich.teer at rite-group.com (Rich Teer) Date: Mon, 07 Aug 2006 16:00:27 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [cab-discuss] Re: [program-team] developer growth goals In-Reply-To: References: <44D6D817.3060400@sun.com> <44D6F5F7.4000507@Sun.COM> <44D7A76A.3000906@sun.com> <20060807211710.GA27142@sun.com> <44D7B694.60503@sun.com> Message-ID: On Mon, 7 Aug 2006, Al Hopper wrote: > On Mon, 7 Aug 2006, Alan Coopersmith wrote: > > > Keith M Wesolowski wrote: > > > If the goal is to provide evidence of openness rather than measure > > > something that can be used by executives to determine the success of > > > the program, we would get a lot more by doing very simple things like > > > finally getting onnv-gate-notify out in the open or publicly flogging > > > the next 10 people to use "see comments" as a bug description than we > > > > Can we set a goal of "Less than X% of new bugs in categories displayed on > > bugs.os.o have no description other than 'See comments' or the equivalent?" > > Does it not make sense to involve the CAB/OGB in this decision making > process(es)? Especially when it comes to setting goals for OpenSolaris > community participation and development. Agreed. Incidentally, this is the first email I've seen in this thread. Am I on on the right aliases (e.g., program-discuss)? -- 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 Aug 8 11:41:24 2006 From: Karyn.Ritter at Sun.COM (Karyn Ritter) Date: Tue, 08 Aug 2006 11:41:24 -0700 Subject: [cab-discuss] Re: [program-team] developer growth goals In-Reply-To: References: <44D6D817.3060400@sun.com> <44D6F5F7.4000507@Sun.COM> <44D7A76A.3000906@sun.com> <20060807211710.GA27142@sun.com> <44D7B694.60503@sun.com> Message-ID: <44D8DAD4.3030005@sun.com> These are Sun corporate goals that happen to be measuring community participation. Personally, I'm thrilled that the Sun executives find community participation (of Sun employees and people outside of Sun participating in the community) important enough to identify it as a growth goal and that people in the community are interested in contributing. The purpose of these goals is to draw attention (within Sun) to certain types of activities -- in this case "participation." The metrics should be a way to we can tell if we are doing well or need to make improvements, so we want to try and find metrics that will really get at what we want to measure. For example, having a "community-contributed integrations" goal last year meant that we didn't emphasize other types of community participation as heavily. There are no implications to the community whether we meet these goals or not. I really didn't think we were going to meet the community-contributed integrations goal last year (nor did I think it should be a goal), and there wouldn't have been consequences to the community if we didn't. If we hadn't met the goal, the executives would have asked the OpenSolaris team questions about why it wasn't met, and we would have (in turn) asked the community for advice on how to improve the process. Incidentally, when we were much further from the goal, we did get input and worked on some of the issues. I absolutely agree that -- as a community -- we need to decide what we want to work on this year, how to measure our success, and how to work toward meeting the goals. These community goals should be independent of the corporate goals. I know the CAB/OGB is busy finishing up the constitution, but if someone wants to kick start a discussion about community goals and metrics, that would be great. I know we also want to look at what metrics are reported on a monthly basis (as well as trying to automate as many of them as possible). With us starting our second year as a community, I think it is the perfect time to start these discussions. Sounds like some metric about the description field of new bugs is the first suggestion for a new metric, and I think a couple people have ideas about how and what to measure... :) Thanks, Karyn Al Hopper wrote: > On Mon, 7 Aug 2006, Alan Coopersmith wrote: > > >>Keith M Wesolowski wrote: >> >>>If the goal is to provide evidence of openness rather than measure >>>something that can be used by executives to determine the success of >>>the program, we would get a lot more by doing very simple things like >>>finally getting onnv-gate-notify out in the open or publicly flogging >>>the next 10 people to use "see comments" as a bug description than we >> >>Can we set a goal of "Less than X% of new bugs in categories displayed on >>bugs.os.o have no description other than 'See comments' or the equivalent?" > > > Does it not make sense to involve the CAB/OGB in this decision making > process(es)? Especially when it comes to setting goals for OpenSolaris > community participation and development. > > How could the greater OpenSolaris community be a willing participant in > terms of attaining Suns' specific goals and objectives when its likely > that only a small minority of the community membership are subscribed to > the "program-team" list? > > Let me put this more bluntly. Let's say, for example, that Sun senior > management decided, for arguments sake, that the number of community > contributed bug fixes was the #1 most important metric that they would use > as the "metric du jour" to determine the perceived "value add" of the > OpenSolaris project. If the community at large understands this, then > their energy could be directed and prioritized towards meeting that goal - > especially if they understood that meeting/exceeding that goal could > determine the (Sun management) committment to the continued > funding/good-health/resource-level-commit to OpenSolaris. > > I've picked a somewhat random time to comment on this thread and the > recipients on the To: and Cc: lines should not interpret this as having > any significance or take it personally in any way. My sense is that the > discussion is too "Sun only" and in danger of meeting the criteria of > "people on glass houses....." type mindset. > > 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 > OpenSolaris Governing Board (OGB) Member - Feb 2006 > _______________________________________________ > cab-discuss mailing list > cab-discuss at opensolaris.org From benr at cuddletech.com Tue Aug 8 13:55:30 2006 From: benr at cuddletech.com (Ben Rockwood) Date: Tue, 08 Aug 2006 13:55:30 -0700 Subject: [cab-discuss] Con-Call, Wed 8/9 Message-ID: <44D8FA42.5020906@cuddletech.com> A CAB-Call was planned for Wed, Aug 9th at Noon. Please confirm attendance for this call and feel free to note any agenda items you have. Call-in Information: * US: (866) 545-5218 * International: (865) 544-7028 * Access Code: 1649399 benr. From rich.teer at rite-group.com Tue Aug 8 14:09:11 2006 From: rich.teer at rite-group.com (Rich Teer) Date: Tue, 08 Aug 2006 14:09:11 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [cab-discuss] Con-Call, Wed 8/9 In-Reply-To: <44D8FA42.5020906@cuddletech.com> References: <44D8FA42.5020906@cuddletech.com> Message-ID: On Tue, 8 Aug 2006, Ben Rockwood wrote: > A CAB-Call was planned for Wed, Aug 9th at Noon. Please confirm attendance > for this call and feel free to note any agenda items you have. I can make it. -- Rich Teer, SCNA, SCSA, OpenSolaris CAB member President, Rite Online Inc. Voice: +1 (250) 979-1638 URL: http://www.rite-group.com/rich From fielding at gbiv.com Tue Aug 8 14:44:50 2006 From: fielding at gbiv.com (Roy T. Fielding) Date: Tue, 8 Aug 2006 14:44:50 -0700 Subject: [cab-discuss] Con-Call, Wed 8/9 In-Reply-To: <44D8FA42.5020906@cuddletech.com> References: <44D8FA42.5020906@cuddletech.com> Message-ID: <4E4507BA-D4D5-4FD1-871C-BED842F2BE2C@gbiv.com> On Aug 8, 2006, at 1:55 PM, Ben Rockwood wrote: > A CAB-Call was planned for Wed, Aug 9th at Noon. Please confirm > attendance for this call and feel free to note any agenda items you > have. Okay by me, ....Roy From al at logical-approach.com Wed Aug 9 05:26:39 2006 From: al at logical-approach.com (Al Hopper) Date: Wed, 9 Aug 2006 07:26:39 -0500 (CDT) Subject: [cab-discuss] Con-Call, Wed 8/9 In-Reply-To: <44D8FA42.5020906@cuddletech.com> References: <44D8FA42.5020906@cuddletech.com> Message-ID: On Tue, 8 Aug 2006, Ben Rockwood wrote: > A CAB-Call was planned for Wed, Aug 9th at Noon. Please confirm > attendance for this call and feel free to note any agenda items you have. I can make it. 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 OpenSolaris Governing Board (OGB) Member - Feb 2006 From Casper.Dik at Sun.COM Wed Aug 9 05:35:33 2006 From: Casper.Dik at Sun.COM (Casper.Dik at Sun.COM) Date: Wed, 09 Aug 2006 14:35:33 +0200 Subject: [cab-discuss] Con-Call, Wed 8/9 In-Reply-To: References: <44D8FA42.5020906@cuddletech.com> Message-ID: <200608091235.k79CZXFw018706@vaticaan.holland.sun.com> >On Tue, 8 Aug 2006, Ben Rockwood wrote: > >> A CAB-Call was planned for Wed, Aug 9th at Noon. Please confirm >> attendance for this call and feel free to note any agenda items you have. I can make the call. Casper From rich.teer at rite-group.com Wed Aug 9 09:55:52 2006 From: rich.teer at rite-group.com (Rich Teer) Date: Wed, 09 Aug 2006 09:55:52 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [cab-discuss] Review comments on Article 7 In-Reply-To: <20060802055516.GA134887@eng.sun.com> References: <20060802055516.GA134887@eng.sun.com> Message-ID: On Tue, 1 Aug 2006, Stephen Hahn wrote: > 7.3 "their opinion" -> "his or her opinion" > > 7.3 "they don't agree" -> "he or she does not agree" What's wrong with the former? It's gender neutral... -- Rich Teer, SCNA, SCSA, OpenSolaris CAB member President, Rite Online Inc. Voice: +1 (250) 979-1638 URL: http://www.rite-group.com/rich From keith.wesolowski at sun.com Wed Aug 9 09:59:15 2006 From: keith.wesolowski at sun.com (Keith M Wesolowski) Date: Wed, 9 Aug 2006 09:59:15 -0700 Subject: [cab-discuss] Review comments on Article 7 In-Reply-To: References: <20060802055516.GA134887@eng.sun.com> Message-ID: <20060809165914.GB23992@sun.com> On Wed, Aug 09, 2006 at 09:55:52AM -0700, Rich Teer wrote: > On Tue, 1 Aug 2006, Stephen Hahn wrote: > > > 7.3 "their opinion" -> "his or her opinion" > > > > 7.3 "they don't agree" -> "he or she does not agree" > > What's wrong with the former? It's gender neutral... It's a common grammatical error, a number mismatch. 'They' always refers to multiple people, but the preceding text refers to one, which is correct. -- Keith M Wesolowski "Sir, we're surrounded!" FishWorks "Excellent; we can attack in any direction!" From rich.teer at rite-group.com Wed Aug 9 09:51:36 2006 From: rich.teer at rite-group.com (Rich Teer) Date: Wed, 09 Aug 2006 09:51:36 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [cab-discuss] OGB committee to determine Sun TM usage In-Reply-To: <44D78FDE.7070805@sun.com> References: <44BC3C0F.2010802@sun.com> <583870C9-3B28-4C1C-B7B1-F18F82644028@gbiv.com> <44CD4F93.9090903@sun.com> <44D78FDE.7070805@sun.com> Message-ID: On Mon, 7 Aug 2006, Sara Dornsife wrote: > I need a final decision on this by end of day Wed (PT) so that we can complete > the license. The CAB have a conferance call today to discuss the Constitution. I suggest that we add this to the agenda too. > I need know who is making the TM decision since it is called out specifically > in the license. I will also need to know who specifically is on this > sub-committee so that I can send the draft of the license to them for review. If it'll help, I don't mind being on the sub-commitee. -- Rich Teer, SCNA, SCSA, OpenSolaris CAB member President, Rite Online Inc. Voice: +1 (250) 979-1638 URL: http://www.rite-group.com/rich From Sara.Dornsife at Sun.COM Wed Aug 9 10:11:13 2006 From: Sara.Dornsife at Sun.COM (Sara Dornsife) Date: Wed, 09 Aug 2006 12:11:13 -0500 Subject: [cab-discuss] OGB committee to determine Sun TM usage In-Reply-To: References: <44BC3C0F.2010802@sun.com> <583870C9-3B28-4C1C-B7B1-F18F82644028@gbiv.com> <44CD4F93.9090903@sun.com> <44D78FDE.7070805@sun.com> Message-ID: <44DA1731.40003@sun.com> I'd like to be on the call. When is it? What's the dial-in? We can cover the topic and bring it to resolution. Thanks Rich. Sara Rich Teer wrote: > On Mon, 7 Aug 2006, Sara Dornsife wrote: > >> I need a final decision on this by end of day Wed (PT) so that we can complete >> the license. > > The CAB have a conferance call today to discuss the Constitution. I suggest > that we add this to the agenda too. > >> I need know who is making the TM decision since it is called out specifically >> in the license. I will also need to know who specifically is on this >> sub-committee so that I can send the draft of the license to them for review. > > If it'll help, I don't mind being on the sub-commitee. > From rich.teer at rite-group.com Wed Aug 9 10:13:36 2006 From: rich.teer at rite-group.com (Rich Teer) Date: Wed, 09 Aug 2006 10:13:36 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [cab-discuss] OGB committee to determine Sun TM usage In-Reply-To: <44DA1731.40003@sun.com> References: <44BC3C0F.2010802@sun.com> <583870C9-3B28-4C1C-B7B1-F18F82644028@gbiv.com> <44CD4F93.9090903@sun.com> <44D78FDE.7070805@sun.com> <44DA1731.40003@sun.com> Message-ID: On Wed, 9 Aug 2006, Sara Dornsife wrote: > I'd like to be on the call. When is it? What's the dial-in? We can cover the > topic and bring it to resolution. Sounds good to me. The call is today at Noon, Pacfic time. Call-in Information: * US: (866) 545-5218 * International: (865) 544-7028 * Access Code: 1649399 -- Rich Teer, SCNA, SCSA, OpenSolaris CAB member President, Rite Online Inc. Voice: +1 (250) 979-1638 URL: http://www.rite-group.com/rich From Susan.Weber at Sun.COM Wed Aug 9 10:34:04 2006 From: Susan.Weber at Sun.COM (Susan Weber) Date: Wed, 09 Aug 2006 10:34:04 -0700 Subject: [cab-discuss] Review comments on Article 7 In-Reply-To: <20060809165914.GB23992@sun.com> References: <20060802055516.GA134887@eng.sun.com> <20060809165914.GB23992@sun.com> Message-ID: <44DA1C8C.6000707@sun.com> Suggestions from the Sun Editorial Style Guide-- also incorporated on p.60 of the Documentation Style Guide for OpenSolaris, which is posted in the Documentation community at http://www.opensolaris.org/os/community/documentation/doc_collab/style_guide/: 1) Use plural antecedents and plural pronouns as often as possible. Example. Change "A core contributor may change their vote" to "Core contributors may change their votes .." The current phrase "Other participants may express their opinions" follows the rule already. 2) Instead of using a personal pronoun, repeat its antecedent when doing so does not sound unpleasant or unnatural. I can't think of a usage example from this section, but the one used in the Editorial Style Guide is: "If a system administrator installed the software, wait until the system administrator can help you." This is preferred to using "he or she." -Sue Sue Weber, Program Manager-Solaris Documentation Nevada, Express, Trusted and OpenSolaris (650) 786-5467 x85467 susan.weber at sun.com Keith M Wesolowski wrote: > On Wed, Aug 09, 2006 at 09:55:52AM -0700, Rich Teer wrote: > > >> On Tue, 1 Aug 2006, Stephen Hahn wrote: >> >> >>> 7.3 "their opinion" -> "his or her opinion" >>> >>> 7.3 "they don't agree" -> "he or she does not agree" >>> >> What's wrong with the former? It's gender neutral... >> > > It's a common grammatical error, a number mismatch. 'They' always > refers to multiple people, but the preceding text refers to one, which > is correct. > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From Casper.Dik at Sun.COM Wed Aug 9 11:22:10 2006 From: Casper.Dik at Sun.COM (Casper.Dik at Sun.COM) Date: Wed, 09 Aug 2006 20:22:10 +0200 Subject: [cab-discuss] OGB committee to determine Sun TM usage In-Reply-To: References: <44BC3C0F.2010802@sun.com> <583870C9-3B28-4C1C-B7B1-F18F82644028@gbiv.com> <44CD4F93.9090903@sun.com> <44D78FDE.7070805@sun.com> <44DA1731.40003@sun.com> Message-ID: <200608091822.k79IMAgt010432@vaticaan.holland.sun.com> >On Wed, 9 Aug 2006, Sara Dornsife wrote: > >> I'd like to be on the call. When is it? What's the dial-in? We can cover the >> topic and bring it to resolution. > >Sounds good to me. The call is today at Noon, Pacfic time. > >Call-in Information: Do we really post these to the public lists now? I think we need to change them ASAP. Casper From sch at eng.sun.com Wed Aug 9 13:07:24 2006 From: sch at eng.sun.com (Stephen Hahn) Date: Wed, 9 Aug 2006 13:07:24 -0700 Subject: [cab-discuss] Review comments on Article 4 In-Reply-To: <20060802055516.GA134853@eng.sun.com> References: <20060802055516.GA134853@eng.sun.com> Message-ID: <20060809200724.GB13288@eng.sun.com> * Stephen Hahn [2006-08-01 23:02]: > > Article IV is concerned with Meetings of Members. As a result, it > covers the notion of Quorum, Voting and Voting Rights, Proxies, and > meeting specifics. Most of this text has gone uncommented in > mail/forum and teleconferences, except one or two minor points I asked > about... Private comments are minimal, and mostly focused on > clarity. > > Section 4.5 on Notice of Adjournment is unclear on whether the resumed > meeting must be announced or not. (I think it allows the new details > to be only part of the record.) Comments suggest that a notice be > clearly required, similar to the initial announcement of a meeting. Discussion concluded that this section was sufficiently standard to leave unchanged--for example, as Roy pointed out, it allows the Meeting to break for lunch. > Section 4.9 on Member Quorum. The last sentence caught some > reviewers: do additional new members count towards the quorum, or > not? Discussion concluded that the addition of new members does not cause quorum to be re-assessed for that Meeting. -- Stephen Hahn, PhD Solaris Kernel Development, Sun Microsystems stephen.hahn at sun.com http://blogs.sun.com/sch/ From sch at eng.sun.com Wed Aug 9 13:12:47 2006 From: sch at eng.sun.com (Stephen Hahn) Date: Wed, 9 Aug 2006 13:12:47 -0700 Subject: [cab-discuss] Review comments on Article 8 In-Reply-To: <20060802055517.GA134904@eng.sun.com> References: <20060802055517.GA134904@eng.sun.com> Message-ID: <20060809201247.GA13375@eng.sun.com> * Stephen Hahn [2006-08-01 23:02]: > > Article VIII concerns Amendment of the Constitution. I know we are > still discussing initial ratification, and are caught between wanting > to successfully ratify and wanting the ratification process and the > amendment process to be consistent. > > As far as I can tell comparing my notes with the mail/forum posts, > most of the past discussion on Article VIII has occurred during OGB > conference calls. This discussion has included whether or not > amendments should require a supermajority of some kind, which was > raised again in the review comments I've received privately. Discussion concluded that this was satisfied by use of an affirmative majority. > Additional comments include a specific concern that Article VIII > explicitly mention that the Constitution as Amended be "in complete > compliance" with the Charter. Minor edit. -- Stephen Hahn, PhD Solaris Kernel Development, Sun Microsystems stephen.hahn at sun.com http://blogs.sun.com/sch/ From sch at eng.sun.com Wed Aug 9 14:44:53 2006 From: sch at eng.sun.com (Stephen Hahn) Date: Wed, 9 Aug 2006 14:44:53 -0700 Subject: [cab-discuss] Genunix Wiki Recent Changes Feed Message-ID: <20060809214453.GA13465@eng.sun.com> Since "watching the changes" issue came up on the call, I thought I would note that http://www.genunix.org/wiki/index.php?title=Special:Recentchanges&feed=atom is an easy way to watch *all* the changes on the genunix.org Wiki. - Stephen -- Stephen Hahn, PhD Solaris Kernel Development, Sun Microsystems stephen.hahn at sun.com http://blogs.sun.com/sch/ From rich.teer at rite-group.com Wed Aug 16 10:38:33 2006 From: rich.teer at rite-group.com (Rich Teer) Date: Wed, 16 Aug 2006 10:38:33 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [cab-discuss] Con call today? Message-ID: Hi all, Are we having a con call today? WIth Casper on vacation and Ben at LinuxWorld, I would guess not, but thought I'd check... -- Rich Teer, SCNA, SCSA, OpenSolaris CAB member President, Rite Online Inc. Voice: +1 (250) 979-1638 URL: http://www.rite-group.com/rich From sch at eng.sun.com Wed Aug 16 11:05:17 2006 From: sch at eng.sun.com (Stephen Hahn) Date: Wed, 16 Aug 2006 11:05:17 -0700 Subject: [cab-discuss] Con call today? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20060816180517.GA26204@eng.sun.com> * Rich Teer [2006-08-16 10:56]: > Are we having a con call today? WIth Casper on vacation and > Ben at LinuxWorld, I would guess not, but thought I'd check... A reasonable question. I am happy to have a quick call if there are specific issues, but I am just as happy to cancel it and let people get their main items done for next week. - Stephen -- Stephen Hahn, PhD Solaris Kernel Development, Sun Microsystems stephen.hahn at sun.com http://blogs.sun.com/sch/ From rich.teer at rite-group.com Wed Aug 16 11:10:15 2006 From: rich.teer at rite-group.com (Rich Teer) Date: Wed, 16 Aug 2006 11:10:15 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [cab-discuss] Con call today? In-Reply-To: <20060816180517.GA26204@eng.sun.com> References: <20060816180517.GA26204@eng.sun.com> Message-ID: On Wed, 16 Aug 2006, Stephen Hahn wrote: > A reasonable question. I am happy to have a quick call if there are > specific issues, but I am just as happy to cancel it and let people > get their main items done for next week. Let's err on the side of caution: meet as planned, but be prepared for few people to show up and for the meeting to be really short. :-) -- 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 Mon Aug 21 17:04:06 2006 From: Karyn.Ritter at Sun.COM (Karyn Ritter) Date: Mon, 21 Aug 2006 17:04:06 -0700 Subject: [cab-discuss] [Fwd: [website-discuss] Out of date link] Message-ID: <44EA49F6.5080507@sun.com> I'm not sure if this is the best alias to forward this to, but... - Karyn -------- Original Message -------- Subject: [website-discuss] Out of date link Date: Fri, 18 Aug 2006 14:06:52 -0700 (PDT) From: Stephen Harpster To: website-discuss at opensolaris.org First, there needs to be a way to report dead or out of date easily. I know from past experience to come to this discussion group, but even this is something you have to dig for. There should a link, down at the bottom maybe (with the Terms of Use | Privacy |...), that quickly takes you to "Having a problem with our web site?" -- something newbies, and even oldbies like me, can easily find. Second, go to http://www.opensolaris.org/os/community/cab/. At the top of the left-most frame, there is a link called OpenSolaris Governance Proposal. This link takes you to an old web page at http://www.opensolaris.org/os/community/cab/governance_proposal/. The [i]real[/i] proposal, however, is at http://www.genunix.org/wiki/index.php/OpenSolaris_Governance. Please scrap the page on opensolaris.org and change the link to point to the genunix.org wiki page. This message posted from opensolaris.org _______________________________________________ website-discuss mailing list website-discuss at opensolaris.org From Jim.Grisanzio at Sun.COM Mon Aug 21 19:45:14 2006 From: Jim.Grisanzio at Sun.COM (Jim Grisanzio) Date: Tue, 22 Aug 2006 11:45:14 +0900 Subject: [cab-discuss] [Fwd: [website-discuss] Out of date link] In-Reply-To: <44EA49F6.5080507@sun.com> References: <44EA49F6.5080507@sun.com> Message-ID: <44EA6FBA.3080501@Sun.COM> > Second, go to http://www.opensolaris.org/os/community/cab/. At the top > of the left-most frame, there is a link called OpenSolaris Governance > Proposal. This link takes you to an old web page at > http://www.opensolaris.org/os/community/cab/governance_proposal/. The > [i]real[/i] proposal, however, is at > http://www.genunix.org/wiki/index.php/OpenSolaris_Governance. Please > scrap the page on opensolaris.org and change the link to point to the > genunix.org wiki page. I'll fix it right now. Jim From Jim.Grisanzio at Sun.COM Mon Aug 21 22:06:02 2006 From: Jim.Grisanzio at Sun.COM (Jim Grisanzio) Date: Tue, 22 Aug 2006 14:06:02 +0900 Subject: [cab-discuss] [Fwd: [website-discuss] Out of date link] In-Reply-To: <44EA6FBA.3080501@Sun.COM> References: <44EA49F6.5080507@sun.com> <44EA6FBA.3080501@Sun.COM> Message-ID: <44EA90BA.80404@Sun.COM> Jim Grisanzio wrote On 08/22/06 11:45,: >> Second, go to http://www.opensolaris.org/os/community/cab/. At the >> top of the left-most frame, there is a link called OpenSolaris >> Governance Proposal. This link takes you to an old web page at >> http://www.opensolaris.org/os/community/cab/governance_proposal/. The >> [i]real[/i] proposal, however, is at >> http://www.genunix.org/wiki/index.php/OpenSolaris_Governance. Please >> scrap the page on opensolaris.org and change the link to point to the >> genunix.org wiki page. > > > I'll fix it right now. CAB's front page copy updated: http://opensolaris.org/os/community/cab/ Charter page copy updated: http://opensolaris.org/os/community/cab/charter/ Governance page copy updated: http://opensolaris.org/os/community/cab/governance/ I also added the Charter approval to the announcement section, and hid some sections the CAB is not using (such as events, etc) just to make the sidebar cleaner. I will update the notes page later today or tomorrow, but please note that all the notes can be found on the list. Jim From rich.teer at rite-group.com Wed Aug 30 12:42:54 2006 From: rich.teer at rite-group.com (Rich Teer) Date: Wed, 30 Aug 2006 12:42:54 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [cab-discuss] Next steps for the Constitution and ratification Message-ID: Hi all, Today's con call was short because we didn't have a quarum, but Simon, Ben, and I discussed the way forward. We think that now that summer is (more or less) over, we need to get cracking and finish this task! What we'd like to do--in parallel with the continuing work on the Constitution--is start thinking about the ratification process, and opening up the discussion to the greater OpenSolaris community. (We still need a final nod from Sun legal to ensure that there are no showstoppers before we do tha latter.) If nothing else, thinking about the ratification process will be a refreshing change from wordsmithing the Consitition. Thoughts, comments? -- Rich Teer, SCNA, SCSA, OpenSolaris CAB member President, Rite Online Inc. Voice: +1 (250) 979-1638 URL: http://www.rite-group.com/rich From Josh.Berkus at Sun.COM Thu Aug 31 11:28:38 2006 From: Josh.Berkus at Sun.COM (Josh Berkus) Date: Thu, 31 Aug 2006 11:28:38 -0700 Subject: [cab-discuss] Next steps for the Constitution and ratification In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <200608311128.39016.josh.berkus@sun.com> All, Howdy. Glynn invited me to join this group to lend expertise. Let me introduce myself: Josh Berkus -- member of the 7-member PostgreSQL Core Team -- Board member of Software in the Public Interest -- Advisory Board member of OpenBRR -- Drafter of the Community Council Charter for OpenOffice.org -- member of the OSS Foundations Cabal and the OSDB Consortium -- and I work in the Database Technology Group at Sun As such, I have a lot of experience with organizing OSS groups, writing charters and thinking about governance issues. That being said, I'm low on bandwidth so I'd prefer to respond to questions rather than providing any kind of leadership. So, questions? -- Josh Berkus PostgreSQL Lead Sun Microsystems San Francisco 01-415-752-2500 From Simon.Phipps at Sun.COM Thu Aug 31 23:27:42 2006 From: Simon.Phipps at Sun.COM (Simon Phipps) Date: Thu, 31 Aug 2006 23:27:42 -0700 Subject: [cab-discuss] Next steps for the Constitution and ratification In-Reply-To: <200608311128.39016.josh.berkus@sun.com> References: <200608311128.39016.josh.berkus@sun.com> Message-ID: Um. What do you think of the current governance draft? http:// www.genunix.org/wiki/index.php/OpenSolaris_Governance_Draft_02 S. On Aug 31, 2006, at 11:28, Josh Berkus wrote: > All, > > Howdy. Glynn invited me to join this group to lend expertise. Let me > introduce myself: > > Josh Berkus > -- member of the 7-member PostgreSQL Core Team > -- Board member of Software in the Public Interest > -- Advisory Board member of OpenBRR > -- Drafter of the Community Council Charter for OpenOffice.org > -- member of the OSS Foundations Cabal and the OSDB Consortium > -- and I work in the Database Technology Group at Sun > > As such, I have a lot of experience with organizing OSS groups, > writing > charters and thinking about governance issues. That being said, > I'm low > on bandwidth so I'd prefer to respond to questions rather than > providing > any kind of leadership. > > So, questions? > > -- > Josh Berkus > PostgreSQL Lead > Sun Microsystems > San Francisco > 01-415-752-2500 > _______________________________________________ > cab-discuss mailing list > cab-discuss at opensolaris.org