From al at logical-approach.com Wed Nov 1 13:58:09 2006 From: al at logical-approach.com (Al Hopper) Date: Wed, 1 Nov 2006 15:58:09 -0600 (CST) Subject: [cab-discuss] OGB 2006/11/01 meeting notes Message-ID: OGB meeting notes for 2006/11/01 (yyyy/mm/dd) CAB conf call. In attendance were: Name Function/membership ---- ------------------- Ben Rockwood in his capacity of providing special assistance to the OGB with the development and refinement of the Governance document. Casper Dik OGB member Al Hopper OGB member Roy Fielding OGB member Simon Phipps OGB member Rich Teer OGB member Stephen Hahn Sun's OpenSolaris tech lead - Sun legal is still reviewing the Governamce Draft 02 document and we expect to receive their feedback next week. - Brief discussion held regarding Roys recent (this AM) edits to the current draft at: http://www.genunix.org/wiki/index.php/OpenSolaris_Governance_Draft_02 - it was decided to remove "virtual" from the term "virtual organization" - Stephen to remove edit marks from the current draft and provide a Draft 03 release. Al to announce this draft to cab-discuss and opensolaris-discuss to give people a "last chance" to make changes before we begin the process of ratification. - Preliminary ratification schedule defined, optimistically, for early December, pending no show stopper issues. New OGB elections to be scheduled shortly after (hopefully) successful ratification (perhaps 2 weeks later ??). - discussion of whether Governance and Charter should be made available in different languages and whether or not a notice should be made that the English "version" would be considered the "master" in case of a dispute involving issues with their intrepretation. - Stephen and Simon to discuss the Governance 03 release with Sun senior executives to ensure that there are no barriers to ratification. - discussion on whether the electronic balloting software, based on code contributed by Roy from Apache.org, should be hosted on Genunix or OpenSolaris - of if it really matters. Decision: host it on OpenSolaris.Org - Al to apply OGB pressure, where necessary, to push Community/Project groups to provide their membership data so that we can seed the initial voting membership lists and proceed with ratification. - the next OGB call is scheduled for Nov 15th when OGB would set a date for ratification and we would check on voting implementation readiness. ---------- 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 Glynn.Foster at Sun.COM Sun Nov 5 16:32:24 2006 From: Glynn.Foster at Sun.COM (Glynn Foster) Date: Mon, 06 Nov 2006 13:32:24 +1300 Subject: [cab-discuss] Open archives Message-ID: <454E8298.7060506@sun.com> Hi, Currently the CAB mailman archives are only public to those that subscribe to the list - I don't see a real good reason for this to be so. Any chance we can change this place? thanks, Glynn From mlh at zip.com.au Sun Nov 5 18:27:35 2006 From: mlh at zip.com.au (Matthew Hannigan) Date: Mon, 6 Nov 2006 13:27:35 +1100 Subject: [cab-discuss] Open archives In-Reply-To: <454E8298.7060506@sun.com> References: <454E8298.7060506@sun.com> Message-ID: <20061106022735.GF26855@evofed.localdomain> On Mon, Nov 06, 2006 at 01:32:24PM +1300, Glynn Foster wrote: > Currently the CAB mailman archives are only public to those that subscribe to > the list - I don't see a real good reason for this to be so. Any chance we can > change this place? Let me add a word of support; I find the mailman archives much faster and easier to navigate than the forums. Matt From al at logical-approach.com Sun Nov 5 19:46:26 2006 From: al at logical-approach.com (Al Hopper) Date: Sun, 5 Nov 2006 21:46:26 -0600 (CST) Subject: [cab-discuss] Open archives In-Reply-To: <454E8298.7060506@sun.com> References: <454E8298.7060506@sun.com> Message-ID: On Mon, 6 Nov 2006, Glynn Foster wrote: > Hi, > > Currently the CAB mailman archives are only public to those that subscribe to > the list - I don't see a real good reason for this to be so. Any chance we can > change this place? Agreed. I don't see any reason why it should not be public. Curiosity question: is this the same for all *-discuss archives or is there something "special" about cab-discuss? 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 Glynn.Foster at Sun.COM Sun Nov 5 20:00:33 2006 From: Glynn.Foster at Sun.COM (Glynn Foster) Date: Mon, 06 Nov 2006 17:00:33 +1300 Subject: [cab-discuss] Open archives In-Reply-To: References: <454E8298.7060506@sun.com> Message-ID: <454EB361.10709@sun.com> Al Hopper wrote: >> Currently the CAB mailman archives are only public to those that subscribe to >> the list - I don't see a real good reason for this to be so. Any chance we can >> change this place? > > Agreed. I don't see any reason why it should not be public. > Curiosity question: is this the same for all *-discuss archives or is > there something "special" about cab-discuss? It's only that way for cab-discuss - I'm not sure I clearly understood the original reason. From the archives - http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/private/cab-discuss/2005-June/000028.html FWIW, I *support* the idea of cab-private - entirely reasonable for any governing board to have sensitive issues to be kept private. I think though, that cab-discuss should be open, both for subscribing and reading the archives. Glynn From Glynn.Foster at Sun.COM Sun Nov 12 13:07:30 2006 From: Glynn.Foster at Sun.COM (Glynn Foster) Date: Mon, 13 Nov 2006 10:07:30 +1300 Subject: [cab-discuss] Open archives In-Reply-To: <454EB361.10709@sun.com> References: <454E8298.7060506@sun.com> <454EB361.10709@sun.com> Message-ID: <45578D12.8070002@sun.com> Glynn Foster wrote: > > Al Hopper wrote: >>> Currently the CAB mailman archives are only public to those that subscribe to >>> the list - I don't see a real good reason for this to be so. Any chance we can >>> change this place? >> Agreed. I don't see any reason why it should not be public. >> Curiosity question: is this the same for all *-discuss archives or is >> there something "special" about cab-discuss? > > It's only that way for cab-discuss - I'm not sure I clearly understood the > original reason. From the archives - > > http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/private/cab-discuss/2005-June/000028.html > > FWIW, I *support* the idea of cab-private - entirely reasonable for any > governing board to have sensitive issues to be kept private. I think though, > that cab-discuss should be open, both for subscribing and reading the archives. Bueller? Glynn From al at logical-approach.com Sun Nov 12 17:02:15 2006 From: al at logical-approach.com (Al Hopper) Date: Sun, 12 Nov 2006 19:02:15 -0600 (CST) Subject: [cab-discuss] Open archives In-Reply-To: <45578D12.8070002@sun.com> References: <454E8298.7060506@sun.com> <454EB361.10709@sun.com> <45578D12.8070002@sun.com> Message-ID: On Mon, 13 Nov 2006, Glynn Foster wrote: > > > Glynn Foster wrote: > > > > Al Hopper wrote: > >>> Currently the CAB mailman archives are only public to those that subscribe to > >>> the list - I don't see a real good reason for this to be so. Any chance we can > >>> change this place? > >> Agreed. I don't see any reason why it should not be public. > >> Curiosity question: is this the same for all *-discuss archives or is > >> there something "special" about cab-discuss? > > > > It's only that way for cab-discuss - I'm not sure I clearly understood the > > original reason. From the archives - > > > > http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/private/cab-discuss/2005-June/000028.html > > > > FWIW, I *support* the idea of cab-private - entirely reasonable for any > > governing board to have sensitive issues to be kept private. I think though, > > that cab-discuss should be open, both for subscribing and reading the archives. > > Bueller? Good catch Glynn. A majority of the OGB agreed and I sent the request to Derek Cicero (see below). Derek can you take care of this for us please? > From al at logical-approach.com Mon Nov 6 20:57:55 2006 -0600 > Date: Mon, 6 Nov 2006 20:57:55 -0600 (CST) > From: Al Hopper > To: Derek Cicero > Subject: change for cab-discuss please > Message-ID: > > Derek, > > (how are you?) > > Can you please change cab-discuss so that mailman archive access does not > require a login/subscription to view. > > Or if you're not the correct person to ask, can you please forward this > request to the correct person. > > Thanks, > > 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 > 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 Glynn.Foster at Sun.COM Sun Nov 12 17:11:30 2006 From: Glynn.Foster at Sun.COM (Glynn Foster) Date: Mon, 13 Nov 2006 14:11:30 +1300 Subject: [cab-discuss] Open archives In-Reply-To: References: <454E8298.7060506@sun.com> <454EB361.10709@sun.com> <45578D12.8070002@sun.com> Message-ID: <4557C642.4020404@sun.com> Hey, Al Hopper wrote: >>> FWIW, I *support* the idea of cab-private - entirely reasonable for any >>> governing board to have sensitive issues to be kept private. I think though, >>> that cab-discuss should be open, both for subscribing and reading the archives. >> Bueller? > > Good catch Glynn. > > A majority of the OGB agreed and I sent the request to Derek Cicero (see > below). Derek can you take care of this for us please? Rock and roll - thanks guys! FWIW, I've actually just processed this request now, and we now have public archives without having to subscribe - http://mail.opensolaris.org/pipermail/cab-discuss/ Glynn From sch at eng.sun.com Tue Nov 14 22:00:57 2006 From: sch at eng.sun.com (Stephen Hahn) Date: Tue, 14 Nov 2006 22:00:57 -0800 Subject: [cab-discuss] [REMINDER] Teleconference tomorrow Message-ID: <20061115060057.GA10517@eng.sun.com> OGB members and working group, I have a couple of updates, and there's probably one or two questions to be asked, so I recommend we go ahead and have the teleconference planned for tomorrow. - 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 Mon Nov 20 15:55:26 2006 From: Glynn.Foster at Sun.COM (Glynn Foster) Date: Tue, 21 Nov 2006 12:55:26 +1300 Subject: [cab-discuss] [REMINDER] Teleconference tomorrow In-Reply-To: <20061115060057.GA10517@eng.sun.com> References: <20061115060057.GA10517@eng.sun.com> Message-ID: <4562406E.9030808@sun.com> Hey, Stephen Hahn wrote: > OGB members and working group, > > I have a couple of updates, and there's probably one or two questions > to be asked, so I recommend we go ahead and have the teleconference > planned for tomorrow. Did this meeting happen - any minutes from this? Glynn From al at logical-approach.com Mon Nov 20 17:52:21 2006 From: al at logical-approach.com (Al Hopper) Date: Mon, 20 Nov 2006 19:52:21 -0600 (CST) Subject: [cab-discuss] [REMINDER] Teleconference tomorrow In-Reply-To: <4562406E.9030808@sun.com> References: <20061115060057.GA10517@eng.sun.com> <4562406E.9030808@sun.com> Message-ID: On Tue, 21 Nov 2006, Glynn Foster wrote: > Hey, > > Stephen Hahn wrote: > > OGB members and working group, > > > > I have a couple of updates, and there's probably one or two questions > > to be asked, so I recommend we go ahead and have the teleconference > > planned for tomorrow. > > Did this meeting happen - any minutes from this? Present were Stephen Hahn and myself for about the first 10 minutes, then Rich Teer joined the conf call. Thus we failed to convene a quorum - with the ability to hold useful discussions and make binding decisions. Various off-topic discussions were held - including: a) a discussion of the difficulty of Web/EE centric Java development and the on-going issues common to the OpenSolaris Java execution/deployment environments and other Java EE-like environments, where, because of a change or update to one toolset/library, things break. And fixing one issue, by replacing a common library (jar file) often leads to issues with other areas of the application. This is simply the Java version of "DLL Hell"... On topic items discussed included: b) Stephen announced that the current OpenSolaris Constitution, "Draft 03" had survived legal review by Sun Legal, intact, and that this document now needed to be presented to senior Sun management for comment/approval, before being presented to the community for ratification. c) Stephen solicited comments/impressions related to Jonathan Schwartzs public remarks to Rich Green on the possibility of changes or additions to the OpenSolaris license. This in the context of Java having been released under GPLv2. When he (Stephen) presents the Constitution to Sun senior executives, he wants to be in a position to present any CAB/OGB concerns and/or impressions, if asked to do so. We all understand that sending the Sun OpenSolaris Tech representative to a discussion with senior Sun management would be foolish if said representative was not fully briefed. BTW: Any proposed changes to the current OpenSolaris licensing would be a topic for discussion with a majority of the CAB/OGB present and would then be expanded to include review/commentry by the OpenSolaris community before any changes were considered. d) Another topic discussed informally, was the status of the Mercurial SCM respository and the disruption caused by the accidental commit of proprietary content to said repository. The timing of this accidental commit was most unfortunate - for many reasons: 1) the people tasked with maintaining the repository, and indeed many of its users, are just getting up to speed with this complex, yet fully capable, tool. 2) that an accidental commit presents a fundamental problem for any SCM: An SCM is designed to record all changes, including adds, deletes and modifications. So how does one remove an un-intended commit and also remove the evidence of that data having been committed and subsequently removed! Its a difficult issue. 3) the person most familiar with Suns SCM tools, and who is the designated "Pilot In Command" (Stephen Lau), was travelling (to Soul) when the proprietary data was accidently committed. There was little choice but to take the repository offline to protect the confidential data ... and then deal with the "fallout" when the required expertize was available. At this point, we all understand that reversing these accidental commits was very disruptive and that making the changes required several time consuming iterations of the SCM where the "to-date" changes had to be submitted, in chronological order, after the confidential data was removed. Getting this right required many time consuming iterations. Kudos to all concerned ... and I would not wish to trade places with those in the "hot seat" during this difficult and public "repair". The OpenSolaris Mercurial repository has be designated an EPA Superfund Site .. just kidding! :) The meeting lasted 20 to 25 minutes IIRC. HTH. Questions/comments welcome. 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 fielding at gbiv.com Mon Nov 20 19:10:16 2006 From: fielding at gbiv.com (Roy T. Fielding) Date: Mon, 20 Nov 2006 19:10:16 -0800 Subject: [cab-discuss] [REMINDER] Teleconference tomorrow In-Reply-To: References: <20061115060057.GA10517@eng.sun.com> <4562406E.9030808@sun.com> Message-ID: <35CF79D7-70CF-4A3A-B2A8-D16A67146F2A@gbiv.com> On Nov 20, 2006, at 5:52 PM, Al Hopper wrote: > On Tue, 21 Nov 2006, Glynn Foster wrote: > >> Hey, >> >> Stephen Hahn wrote: >>> OGB members and working group, >>> >>> I have a couple of updates, and there's probably one or two >>> questions >>> to be asked, so I recommend we go ahead and have the >>> teleconference >>> planned for tomorrow. >> >> Did this meeting happen - any minutes from this? > > Present were Stephen Hahn and myself for about the first 10 > minutes, then > Rich Teer joined the conf call. Thus we failed to convene a quorum > - with > the ability to hold useful discussions and make binding decisions. Huh. I didn't receive Stephen's message that this is obviously in reply to, so no wonder that I missed the meeting. I think my ISP choked at just the wrong time last week, since I lost mail on other lists as well. > On topic items discussed included: > > b) Stephen announced that the current OpenSolaris Constitution, > "Draft 03" > had survived legal review by Sun Legal, intact, and that this > document now > needed to be presented to senior Sun management for comment/approval, > before being presented to the community for ratification. > > c) Stephen solicited comments/impressions related to Jonathan > Schwartzs > public remarks to Rich Green on the possibility of changes or > additions to > the OpenSolaris license. This in the context of Java having been > released > under GPLv2. > > When he (Stephen) presents the Constitution to Sun senior > executives, he > wants to be in a position to present any CAB/OGB concerns and/or > impressions, if asked to do so. We all understand that sending the > Sun > OpenSolaris Tech representative to a discussion with senior Sun > management > would be foolish if said representative was not fully briefed. > > BTW: Any proposed changes to the current OpenSolaris licensing > would be a > topic for discussion with a majority of the CAB/OGB present and > would then > be expanded to include review/commentry by the OpenSolaris community > before any changes were considered. Okay, sure, but that is largely irrelevant when compared to the legal restrictions that prevent OpenSolaris from using GPL in the first place. I still don't know how the JVM is going to be distributed as GPL, given that it consists of many pieces that are supposedly GPL- incompatible, but maybe GPLv3 will come out before that hits the fan. > d) Another topic discussed informally, was the status of the > Mercurial SCM > respository and the disruption caused by the accidental commit of > proprietary content to said repository. The timing of this accidental > commit was most unfortunate - for many reasons: Actually, it is better for it to happen now than later -- it will serve as a reminder of what needs to be backed up and why. ....Roy From webmink at sun.com Mon Nov 20 23:18:46 2006 From: webmink at sun.com (Simon Phipps) Date: Tue, 21 Nov 2006 08:18:46 +0100 Subject: [cab-discuss] [REMINDER] Teleconference tomorrow In-Reply-To: <35CF79D7-70CF-4A3A-B2A8-D16A67146F2A@gbiv.com> References: <20061115060057.GA10517@eng.sun.com> <4562406E.9030808@sun.com> <35CF79D7-70CF-4A3A-B2A8-D16A67146F2A@gbiv.com> Message-ID: <21603C01-D34F-45E7-BD95-22FB1807F451@sun.com> On Nov 21, 2006, at 04:10, Roy T. Fielding wrote: > On Nov 20, 2006, at 5:52 PM, Al Hopper wrote: >> On Tue, 21 Nov 2006, Glynn Foster wrote: >> >>> Hey, >>> >>> Stephen Hahn wrote: >>>> OGB members and working group, >>>> >>>> I have a couple of updates, and there's probably one or two >>>> questions >>>> to be asked, so I recommend we go ahead and have the >>>> teleconference >>>> planned for tomorrow. >>> >>> Did this meeting happen - any minutes from this? >> >> Present were Stephen Hahn and myself for about the first 10 >> minutes, then >> Rich Teer joined the conf call. Thus we failed to convene a >> quorum - with >> the ability to hold useful discussions and make binding decisions. > > Huh. I didn't receive Stephen's message that this is obviously in > reply > to, so no wonder that I missed the meeting. I think my ISP choked > at just > the wrong time last week, since I lost mail on other lists as well. Likewise. I wonder how many other meetings I have missed in similar circumstances? I don't seem to have seen many meeting notices of late. > >> On topic items discussed included: >> >> b) Stephen announced that the current OpenSolaris Constitution, >> "Draft 03" >> had survived legal review by Sun Legal, intact, and that this >> document now >> needed to be presented to senior Sun management for comment/approval, >> before being presented to the community for ratification. This was overshadowed by the Java work last week but can now hopefully proceed. >> >> c) Stephen solicited comments/impressions related to Jonathan >> Schwartzs >> public remarks to Rich Green on the possibility of changes or >> additions to >> the OpenSolaris license. This in the context of Java having been >> released >> under GPLv2. In addition I discussed concerns I'd heard over those remarks with Jonathan and he's contacted the CAB privately to explore starting a dialogue. >> >> When he (Stephen) presents the Constitution to Sun senior >> executives, he >> wants to be in a position to present any CAB/OGB concerns and/or >> impressions, if asked to do so. We all understand that sending >> the Sun >> OpenSolaris Tech representative to a discussion with senior Sun >> management >> would be foolish if said representative was not fully briefed. >> >> BTW: Any proposed changes to the current OpenSolaris licensing >> would be a >> topic for discussion with a majority of the CAB/OGB present and >> would then >> be expanded to include review/commentry by the OpenSolaris community >> before any changes were considered. > > Okay, sure, but that is largely irrelevant when compared to the legal > restrictions that prevent OpenSolaris from using GPL in the first > place. > I still don't know how the JVM is going to be distributed as GPL, > given that it consists of many pieces that are supposedly GPL- > incompatible, > but maybe GPLv3 will come out before that hits the fan. There's no problem with any of the stuff that was released last week, it's all Sun's code. Software Freedom Law Center and FSF have prepared a GPL exception (in addition to the Classpath exception) we will be adding to the software to allow distribution and use of the aggregate JDK while there are still encumbered elements, but we hope both community contributions (especially from Classpath) and Sun remediation will clear those before too long. After those encumberances are cleared the code will then be licensed GPL +Classpath Exception. This is all in the FAQ at http://www.sun.com/ software/opensource/java/faq.jsp which I regard as something of a masterwork :-) The situation with OpenSolaris is very different - this is all my views, however, I've not had the chance to discuss with anyone else yet. To start with it's already a smorgasbord of different licenses, so the concept of a "GPL OpenSolaris" is not correct anyway. The proposal would almost certainly have to be be to dual (CDDL + GPL) license ON, and as Roy points out doing that would also involve exception language which unlike the JDK would probably have to be permanent. GPL v3 could very well be useful. It has the structures to allow creative use of exception language and consequent compatibility with other licenses. The drafting process continues apace and Sun is deeply engaged in it. S. From Casper.Dik at Sun.COM Tue Nov 21 01:47:24 2006 From: Casper.Dik at Sun.COM (Casper.Dik at Sun.COM) Date: Tue, 21 Nov 2006 10:47:24 +0100 Subject: [cab-discuss] [REMINDER] Teleconference tomorrow In-Reply-To: References: <20061115060057.GA10517@eng.sun.com> <4562406E.9030808@sun.com> Message-ID: <200611210947.kAL9lO0X025056@vaticaan.holland.sun.com> >Present were Stephen Hahn and myself for about the first 10 minutes, then >Rich Teer joined the conf call. Thus we failed to convene a quorum - with >the ability to hold useful discussions and make binding decisions. I had not seen the announcement, not that I remembered anyway. Casper From al at logical-approach.com Wed Nov 22 07:09:10 2006 From: al at logical-approach.com (Al Hopper) Date: Wed, 22 Nov 2006 09:09:10 -0600 (CST) Subject: [cab-discuss] proposal to ban Martin Schaffstall Message-ID: I'd like to solicit opinions and establish a CAB/OGB majority decision to ban Martin Schaffstall from all OpenSolaris related mailing lists. Yesterday he posted this to the ksh93-integration list: http://mail.opensolaris.org/pipermail/ksh93-integration-discuss/2006-November/001892.html [ please review the ensuing responses ] And I sent him packing with this (diplomatic!) followup: http://mail.opensolaris.org/pipermail/ksh93-integration-discuss/2006-November/001897.html After which he went to opensolaris-discuss and started this thread: http://mail.opensolaris.org/pipermail/opensolaris-discuss/2006-November/021900.html which, of course, is a blatant lie. I don't know what his agenda is, but it looks to me like he fits the profile in: http://www.red-bean.com/dav/presentations/Poisonous-people.pdf IMO the project would be better off without him. If we get a majority Yes decision, I'll reference this email in opensolaris-discuss. 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 Casper.Dik at Sun.COM Wed Nov 22 07:31:08 2006 From: Casper.Dik at Sun.COM (Casper.Dik at Sun.COM) Date: Wed, 22 Nov 2006 16:31:08 +0100 Subject: [cab-discuss] [REMINDER] Teleconference tomorrow References: <20061115060057.GA10517@eng.sun.com> <4562406E.9030808@sun.com> Message-ID: <200611221531.kAMFV8us025843@vaticaan.holland.sun.com> I'm afraid I can't make today's meeting. (Social thingy I can't avoid) Casper From al at logical-approach.com Wed Nov 22 07:33:12 2006 From: al at logical-approach.com (Al Hopper) Date: Wed, 22 Nov 2006 09:33:12 -0600 (CST) Subject: [cab-discuss] no CAB meeting today In-Reply-To: <200611221531.kAMFV8us025843@vaticaan.holland.sun.com> References: <20061115060057.GA10517@eng.sun.com> <4562406E.9030808@sun.com> <200611221531.kAMFV8us025843@vaticaan.holland.sun.com> Message-ID: On Wed, 22 Nov 2006 Casper.Dik at Sun.COM wrote: > > > I'm afraid I can't make today's meeting. (Social thingy I can't avoid) > I don't think we have a CAB conf call scheduled for today. 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 Stephen.Harpster at Sun.COM Wed Nov 22 07:57:14 2006 From: Stephen.Harpster at Sun.COM (Stephen Harpster) Date: Wed, 22 Nov 2006 07:57:14 -0800 Subject: [cab-discuss] proposal to ban Martin Schaffstall In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4564735A.9020801@sun.com> Does the governance proposal permit this? I thought it only allowed for kicking out voting members..... Al Hopper wrote: > I'd like to solicit opinions and establish a CAB/OGB majority decision to > ban Martin Schaffstall from all OpenSolaris related mailing lists. > > Yesterday he posted this to the ksh93-integration list: > > http://mail.opensolaris.org/pipermail/ksh93-integration-discuss/2006-November/001892.html > > [ please review the ensuing responses ] > > And I sent him packing with this (diplomatic!) followup: > > http://mail.opensolaris.org/pipermail/ksh93-integration-discuss/2006-November/001897.html > > After which he went to opensolaris-discuss and started this thread: > > http://mail.opensolaris.org/pipermail/opensolaris-discuss/2006-November/021900.html > > which, of course, is a blatant lie. > > I don't know what his agenda is, but it looks to me like he fits the > profile in: > > http://www.red-bean.com/dav/presentations/Poisonous-people.pdf > > IMO the project would be better off without him. > > If we get a majority Yes decision, I'll reference this email in > opensolaris-discuss. > > 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 > -- Stephen Harpster Director, Open Source Software Sun Microsystems, Inc. From rich.teer at rite-group.com Wed Nov 22 08:56:42 2006 From: rich.teer at rite-group.com (Rich Teer) Date: Wed, 22 Nov 2006 08:56:42 -0800 (PST) Subject: [cab-discuss] proposal to ban Martin Schaffstall In-Reply-To: <4564735A.9020801@sun.com> References: <4564735A.9020801@sun.com> Message-ID: On Wed, 22 Nov 2006, Stephen Harpster wrote: > Does the governance proposal permit this? I thought it only allowed for > kicking out voting members..... Good question. We should check, and if it isn't, debate the pros and cons of changing it so that it does. -- Rich Teer, SCSA, SCNA, SCSECA, OpenSolaris CAB member President, Rite Online Inc. Voice: +1 (250) 979-1638 URL: http://www.rite-group.com/rich From rich.teer at rite-group.com Wed Nov 22 09:04:17 2006 From: rich.teer at rite-group.com (Rich Teer) Date: Wed, 22 Nov 2006 09:04:17 -0800 (PST) Subject: [cab-discuss] proposal to ban Martin Schaffstall In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Wed, 22 Nov 2006, Al Hopper wrote: > I'd like to solicit opinions and establish a CAB/OGB majority decision to > ban Martin Schaffstall from all OpenSolaris related mailing lists. I agree that he is a major FUD-spreader. > I don't know what his agenda is, but it looks to me like he fits the > profile in: > > http://www.red-bean.com/dav/presentations/Poisonous-people.pdf Agreed. > IMO the project would be better off without him. Also agreed. However, we have to be careful here. I'm all for freedom of expression--even if the views expressed don't coincide with mine--so the question is: is Martin a shit stirrer, or just someone who is venting his frustrations in an inappropriate manner? If its the former (and we're allowed to), then yes, we should eject him from the community/mailing lists; the sooner his poison goes, the better. But if it's the latter, someone* needs to explain the error of his ways. In other words, he needs to be LARTed! :-) * I'm not necessarily volunteering for that job! -- Rich Teer, SCSA, SCNA, SCSECA, OpenSolaris CAB member President, Rite Online Inc. Voice: +1 (250) 979-1638 URL: http://www.rite-group.com/rich From webmink at sun.com Wed Nov 22 12:44:35 2006 From: webmink at sun.com (Simon Phipps) Date: Wed, 22 Nov 2006 20:44:35 +0000 Subject: [cab-discuss] [REMINDER] Teleconference tomorrow In-Reply-To: <200611221531.kAMFV8us025843@vaticaan.holland.sun.com> References: <20061115060057.GA10517@eng.sun.com> <4562406E.9030808@sun.com> <200611221531.kAMFV8us025843@vaticaan.holland.sun.com> Message-ID: Actually being on the ground today I dialled in but was alone - did it happen? S. On Nov 22, 2006, at 15:31, Casper.Dik at Sun.COM wrote: > > > I'm afraid I can't make today's meeting. (Social thingy I can't > avoid) > > Casper > _______________________________________________ > cab-discuss mailing list > cab-discuss at opensolaris.org From fielding at gbiv.com Wed Nov 22 13:09:38 2006 From: fielding at gbiv.com (Roy T. Fielding) Date: Wed, 22 Nov 2006 13:09:38 -0800 Subject: [cab-discuss] proposal to ban Martin Schaffstall In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Nov 22, 2006, at 7:09 AM, Al Hopper wrote: > I'd like to solicit opinions and establish a CAB/OGB majority > decision to > ban Martin Schaffstall from all OpenSolaris related mailing lists. > > Yesterday he posted this to the ksh93-integration list: > > http://mail.opensolaris.org/pipermail/ksh93-integration-discuss/ > 2006-November/001892.html > > [ please review the ensuing responses ] > > And I sent him packing with this (diplomatic!) followup: > > http://mail.opensolaris.org/pipermail/ksh93-integration-discuss/ > 2006-November/001897.html > > After which he went to opensolaris-discuss and started this thread: > > http://mail.opensolaris.org/pipermail/opensolaris-discuss/2006- > November/021900.html > > which, of course, is a blatant lie. Sure, but his posts are pointless and easily ignored. He has only posted once on discuss and was immediately shouted down. He posted a few times during the PSARC discussion and should have been ignored. The OGB should not get in the habit of policing the community for people who have contrary opinions. If they are actively obstructing work, then the community group should ask us to remove him for that reason (and that reason alone). If he repeats his accusations again on discuss without providing any evidence, then I might consider banning him as a troll. ....Roy From Glynn.Foster at Sun.COM Wed Nov 22 13:50:15 2006 From: Glynn.Foster at Sun.COM (Glynn Foster) Date: Thu, 23 Nov 2006 10:50:15 +1300 Subject: [cab-discuss] [REMINDER] Teleconference tomorrow In-Reply-To: References: <20061115060057.GA10517@eng.sun.com> <4562406E.9030808@sun.com> <200611221531.kAMFV8us025843@vaticaan.holland.sun.com> Message-ID: <4564C617.6000605@sun.com> Simon Phipps wrote: > Actually being on the ground today I dialled in but was alone - did > it happen? I think you were confused with an email sent last week that you never received. I assume the meeting was actually scheduled in and around 15th Nov. You can probably blame a bug on opensolaris.org somewhere - mail has been slow this week for some reason. Derek might know more. Glynn From Glynn.Foster at Sun.COM Wed Nov 22 13:51:20 2006 From: Glynn.Foster at Sun.COM (Glynn Foster) Date: Thu, 23 Nov 2006 10:51:20 +1300 Subject: [cab-discuss] proposal to ban Martin Schaffstall In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4564C658.6070103@sun.com> Roy T. Fielding wrote: > Sure, but his posts are pointless and easily ignored. He has only > posted once on discuss and was immediately shouted down. He posted > a few times during the PSARC discussion and should have been ignored. > > The OGB should not get in the habit of policing the community for > people who have contrary opinions. If they are actively obstructing > work, then the community group should ask us to remove him for that > reason (and that reason alone). If he repeats his accusations again > on discuss without providing any evidence, then I might consider > banning him as a troll. +1 I agree, don't bother. Communities get these sorts of people passing through them on a regular basis. With the added complexity of the Jive forums, it would be a pretty pointless waste of time. Glynn From webmink at sun.com Wed Nov 22 15:31:43 2006 From: webmink at sun.com (Simon Phipps) Date: Wed, 22 Nov 2006 23:31:43 +0000 Subject: [cab-discuss] proposal to ban Martin Schaffstall In-Reply-To: <4564C658.6070103@sun.com> References: <4564C658.6070103@sun.com> Message-ID: <854CBA24-DE91-4593-A2A4-8135C38B15B3@sun.com> On Nov 22, 2006, at 21:51, Glynn Foster wrote: > > > Roy T. Fielding wrote: >> Sure, but his posts are pointless and easily ignored. He has only >> posted once on discuss and was immediately shouted down. He posted >> a few times during the PSARC discussion and should have been ignored. >> >> The OGB should not get in the habit of policing the community for >> people who have contrary opinions. If they are actively obstructing >> work, then the community group should ask us to remove him for that >> reason (and that reason alone). If he repeats his accusations again >> on discuss without providing any evidence, then I might consider >> banning him as a troll. > > +1 I agree, don't bother. Communities get these sorts of people > passing through > them on a regular basis. With the added complexity of the Jive > forums, it would > be a pretty pointless waste of time. I agree with this - the OGB is an appeals court, not Judge Dredd. However, we do need to be sure that the OGB is in a position to enact the ban should there be a community petition. S. From mike.kupfer at sun.com Wed Nov 22 19:54:34 2006 From: mike.kupfer at sun.com (Mike Kupfer) Date: Wed, 22 Nov 2006 19:54:34 -0800 Subject: [cab-discuss] proposal to ban Martin Schaffstall In-Reply-To: Message from Simon Phipps of "Wed, 22 Nov 2006 23:31:43 GMT." <854CBA24-DE91-4593-A2A4-8135C38B15B3@sun.com> Message-ID: <1773.1164254074@athyra> >>>>> "Simon" == Simon Phipps writes: Simon> However, we do need to be sure that the OGB is in a position to Simon> enact the ban should there be a community petition. And we need to be sure that the web site infrastructure can easily enforce any such bans. (I don't think it does today.) mike From rich.teer at rite-group.com Wed Nov 22 20:40:31 2006 From: rich.teer at rite-group.com (Rich Teer) Date: Wed, 22 Nov 2006 20:40:31 -0800 (PST) Subject: [cab-discuss] proposal to ban Martin Schaffstall In-Reply-To: <1773.1164254074@athyra> References: <1773.1164254074@athyra> Message-ID: On Wed, 22 Nov 2006, Mike Kupfer wrote: > And we need to be sure that the web site infrastructure can easily > enforce any such bans. (I don't think it does today.) More to the point, I don't think such a ban would be very pragmatic. With the advent of free email accounts, nothing prevents a banned user from re-registering under a different name/email address. -- Rich Teer, SCSA, SCNA, SCSECA, OpenSolaris CAB member President, Rite Online Inc. Voice: +1 (250) 979-1638 URL: http://www.rite-group.com/rich