From Josh.Berkus at Sun.COM Fri Sep 1 09:47:39 2006 From: Josh.Berkus at Sun.COM (Josh Berkus) Date: Fri, 01 Sep 2006 09:47:39 -0700 Subject: [cab-discuss] Next steps for the Constitution and ratification In-Reply-To: References: <200608311128.39016.josh.berkus@sun.com> Message-ID: <44F8642B.9090900@sun.com> Simon Phipps wrote: > Um. > > What do you think of the current governance draft? > http://www.genunix.org/wiki/index.php/OpenSolaris_Governance_Draft_02 Well, I haven't read the *whole* thing (that would take a while), but here's some things which jumped out at me: (1) This document is long and complex. You will need to have a summary document to go with it or people will get intimidated and not participate. (2) The entire document concerns itself with voting and membership (which is well-covered) but completely ignores some substantial matters, such as: -- Who makes up the steering committee? -- How are they elected? -- How does OpenSolaris decide which patches are in and which out? -- Who determines release schedules? -- How is licencing decided? (since the charter implies that the license may change) (3) Meetings are specified using synchronous means only (IRC or phone conference). No matter when you schedule a meeting, this means cutting 1/3 of the world out of the meeting. You should have a provision for asynchronous e-mail meetings. (4) Given that currently all Core Members are Sun employees, you should spell out in explicit detail the path for a non-Sun employee to become a core member. It's implied there, but it's not clear and people are going to want that before they buy into the system. For that matter, it would be a good idea to bootstrap a non-Sun person into Core (and the eventual steering committee) from day 1. That way people who feel that they are being held back because of Sun politics have someone to talk to. (5) You have currently three levels of organization: (a) general members (b) contributing members (c) core members which is divided into: 1. with repository acceess, and 2. without repository access and will soon need: (d) a steering committee ... this seems a little byzantine out of the gate, and seems liable to drown people in bureaucracy. No independant project is this complex, not even Debian, Apache or Eclipse. Maybe cut it down somehow? Like, General, Contributing, Committer, Steering? (6) I don't see keeping people on as contributors *forever* as a good thing. Gods know I wouldn't want some of our PostgreSQL emeritae jumping in and arguing patches after 7 years of inactivity. I think a "removal after 3 years of inactivity, at the discretion of the steering committee" would be a good idea. --Josh Berkus --Josh Berkus From rich.teer at rite-group.com Wed Sep 6 11:59:51 2006 From: rich.teer at rite-group.com (Rich Teer) Date: Wed, 06 Sep 2006 11:59:51 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [cab-discuss] Is there a con-call today? Message-ID: I forget, and I've not seen a reminder, so just thought I'd ask... -- Rich Teer, SCNA, SCSA, OpenSolaris CAB member President, Rite Online Inc. Voice: +1 (250) 979-1638 URL: http://www.rite-group.com/rich From benr at cuddletech.com Wed Sep 6 12:15:11 2006 From: benr at cuddletech.com (Ben Rockwood) Date: Wed, 06 Sep 2006 12:15:11 -0700 Subject: [cab-discuss] Is there a con-call today? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <44FF1E3F.2010000@cuddletech.com> Rich Teer wrote: > I forget, and I've not seen a reminder, so just thought I'd ask... > We fumbled the call today. I forgot to send reminders untill about 30 minutes ago. On the off chance someone would call in I opened the call at noon, but only Simon called in. We'll regroup and get organized for next Wed. benr. From fielding at gbiv.com Tue Sep 12 19:27:32 2006 From: fielding at gbiv.com (Roy T. Fielding) Date: Tue, 12 Sep 2006 19:27:32 -0700 Subject: [cab-discuss] Review comments on Article 8 In-Reply-To: <20060809201247.GA13375@eng.sun.com> References: <20060802055517.GA134904@eng.sun.com> <20060809201247.GA13375@eng.sun.com> Message-ID: On Aug 9, 2006, at 1:12 PM, Stephen Hahn wrote: > * 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. I have addressed this in ....Roy From fielding at gbiv.com Tue Sep 12 19:33:49 2006 From: fielding at gbiv.com (Roy T. Fielding) Date: Tue, 12 Sep 2006 19:33:49 -0700 Subject: [cab-discuss] Review comments on Article 8 In-Reply-To: References: <20060802055517.GA134904@eng.sun.com> <20060809201247.GA13375@eng.sun.com> Message-ID: <6265D513-81B6-4B20-B763-CC4F76250F2A@gbiv.com> On Sep 12, 2006, at 7:27 PM, Roy T. Fielding wrote: > On Aug 9, 2006, at 1:12 PM, Stephen Hahn wrote: > >> * 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. > > I have addressed this in ... Looks like the wiki only supports diff against the most recent two revisions, so here is the change: This constitution and its bylaws may be altered, amended, added to, or repealed by an affirmative vote of a majority of the Voting Members of record, provided that the proposed deletions and additions, when applied to the constitution, will result in a new constitution that remains in complete compliance with the OpenSolaris Charter. The complete text of the proposed deletions and additions are must be delivered in a notice by electronic mail to the Voting Members no less than ten (10) days prior to that any vote on said deletions and additions. ....Roy From fielding at gbiv.com Tue Sep 12 20:02:02 2006 From: fielding at gbiv.com (Roy T. Fielding) Date: Tue, 12 Sep 2006 20:02:02 -0700 Subject: [cab-discuss] Review comments on Article 7 In-Reply-To: <20060802055516.GA134887@eng.sun.com> References: <20060802055516.GA134887@eng.sun.com> Message-ID: <3715E0CE-863D-4A47-99EB-9F7095F89173@gbiv.com> On Aug 1, 2006, at 10:55 PM, Stephen Hahn wrote: > 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..." Done. > 7.1 Drop last sentence. Done. > 7.3 "their opinion" -> "his or her opinion" Changed to "Other Participants may express their opinions" > 7.3 "set in stone" -> "final" (or longer, non-idiomatic text) Done. > 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." Done. > 7.3 "they don't agree" -> "he or she does not agree" Changed to "regardless of their own vote" ....Roy From fielding at gbiv.com Tue Sep 12 20:06:33 2006 From: fielding at gbiv.com (Roy T. Fielding) Date: Tue, 12 Sep 2006 20:06:33 -0700 Subject: [cab-discuss] Review comments on Article 2 In-Reply-To: <20060802055515.GA134819@eng.sun.com> References: <20060802055515.GA134819@eng.sun.com> Message-ID: On Aug 1, 2006, at 10:55 PM, Stephen Hahn wrote: > 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.) Changed to the following (additions): Article II. Purpose The OpenSolaris Community is a virtual organization of individuals and companies dedicated to the collaborative production of open source software related to the OpenSolaris™ family of operating systems and committed to fostering the evolution and adoption of the OpenSolaris code base. All software produced by the OpenSolaris Community will be is licensed to the public free of charge under one or more open source licenses approved by the Open Source Initiative. The OpenSolaris Community has the authority and responsibility for all decisions pertaining to the OpenSolaris software and collaborative infrastructure, including the allocation and deallocation of resources to support development of work products of the OpenSolaris Community within the scope defined by the OpenSolaris Charter, provided that such decisions are not inconsistent with applicable law, regulation, and the exclusive rights of the copyright owners. This constitution defines the procedures by which the OpenSolaris Community makes decisions in order to sustain itself as a self-governing institution within the bounds laid out by the Charter. ....Roy From fielding at gbiv.com Tue Sep 12 20:51:36 2006 From: fielding at gbiv.com (Roy T. Fielding) Date: Tue, 12 Sep 2006 20:51:36 -0700 Subject: [cab-discuss] Review comments on Article 5 In-Reply-To: <20060802055516.GA134870@eng.sun.com> References: <20060802055516.GA134870@eng.sun.com> Message-ID: <55DFC380-A550-42E1-953E-8034FE77CCAE@gbiv.com> On Aug 1, 2006, at 10:55 PM, Stephen Hahn wrote: > 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. Hmm, it already says "may exercise all such powers granted by the Charter" so I don't know what needs re-emphasizing. > 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. I added the requirement, but I think the detailed procedures are not appropriate for the constitution. > Minor corrections > > 5.3 "must be closed" -> "must be completed" (suggested) Done. ....Roy From Eric.Boutilier at Sun.COM Wed Sep 13 10:36:56 2006 From: Eric.Boutilier at Sun.COM (Eric Boutilier) Date: Wed, 13 Sep 2006 12:36:56 -0500 (CDT) Subject: [cab-discuss] Re: [osol-discuss] Community Proposal: Gardeners In-Reply-To: References: <20060911175803.GK8924@eng.sun.com> Message-ID: On Wed, 13 Sep 2006, Eric Boutilier wrote: > Thanks, Dan. You have seconds. I'll contact you offline to get > you set up. Correction, I jumped the gun. As this is a community (not project) proposal, we need a Governing Board member(s) to weigh in before we can move ahead. Eric > > On Mon, 11 Sep 2006, Dan Price wrote: >> >> I would like to propose a new community called "Gardeners" based on >> some recent discussions on opensolaris-code. [1,2] >> >> The mission of the community is simple: raise the overall code quality of >> the system. >> >> The intention of the community is to provide a nexus for a group of people >> who are already active in the community and to attract new talent who >> share our values. The technical scope of the community is roughly: >> >> - Automated code checking (lint, cstyle, check_rpath, etc.) >> - Care and feeding of the build process >> - Retiring obsolete subsystems >> - Other types of code cleanup >> >> While this community has some similarity to the Linux "kernel janitors" >> [3] project, our focus will be more on structural changes than on code >> examination ("we're not here to sweep up after your broken project"). The >> community expects that it will necessarily have some overlap with the >> OS/Net community and with the Tools community. >> >> [1] http://www.opensolaris.org/jive/thread.jspa?threadID=12619&tstart=15 >> [2] http://www.opensolaris.org/jive/thread.jspa?threadID=12928&tstart=0 >> [3] http://janitor.kernelnewbies.org/ >> >> Thanks, >> >> -dp >> >> -- >> Daniel Price - Solaris Kernel Engineering - dp at eng.sun.com - blogs.sun.com/dp >> > From sch at eng.sun.com Wed Sep 13 13:40:38 2006 From: sch at eng.sun.com (Stephen Hahn) Date: Wed, 13 Sep 2006 13:40:38 -0700 Subject: [cab-discuss] Notes, 13 Sept 2006 Message-ID: <20060913204038.GF17900@eng.sun.com> Attendance: Dik, Fielding, Hopper, Teer; Hahn, Rockwood I. Governance/Constitution 1. Roy has updated all articles of the Constitution, except for Article III, which is in progress. Further discussion in the threads on the alias is encouraged; the intent is to issue a new draft shortly thereafter. Al noted a small error in 4.12, which will be corrected. 2. Simon and Stephen will begin internal vetting of draft Constitution for Sun approval. Further discussion of Article II may be required, depending on feedback. 3. Discussion on cab-discuss highlighted the need for one or more introductory documents. For instance, an "OpenSolaris Community HOWTO" might be written to explain, in plain language, the nature of the Board, Groups, Projects, roles, consensus, and disputes. 4. Roy explained the basic notion of electronic voting used in Apache elections. This method may be able to be hosted at one or more community sites. II. Other status 5. Stephen reported that there is some need for localized entry sites into opensolaris.org. He invited discussion/suggestions on website-discuss. 6. Stephen mentioned the existence of starter kits, and how they are currently envisioned for distribution. Al noted that giving batches to evangelists to redistribute might be particularly effective. Stephen invited Board members to contact him if they wanted personal copies. As noted, the starter kit is a community project inviting wider involvement: http://www.opensolaris.org/os/project/starterkit/ 7. Stephen briefly recounted the OpenSolaris aspects of the recent Seattle TechDays. Please correct/augment as appropriate. - Stephen -- Stephen Hahn, PhD Solaris Kernel Development, Sun Microsystems stephen.hahn at sun.com http://blogs.sun.com/sch/ From Simon.Phipps at Sun.COM Mon Sep 18 15:58:15 2006 From: Simon.Phipps at Sun.COM (Simon Phipps) Date: Mon, 18 Sep 2006 23:58:15 +0100 Subject: [cab-discuss] Re: [osol-discuss] Community Proposal: Gardeners In-Reply-To: References: <20060911175803.GK8924@eng.sun.com> Message-ID: <3AA6F2D3-AB77-4DBE-9F78-5323A0D0A449@Sun.COM> My apologies, my filters didn't grab the rest of this thread - can you send a summary of the support received? It seems this proposal would need good non-Sun-employee community support to be worthwhile. S. On Sep 13, 2006, at 18:36, Eric Boutilier wrote: > On Wed, 13 Sep 2006, Eric Boutilier wrote: >> Thanks, Dan. You have seconds. I'll contact you offline to get >> you set up. > > Correction, I jumped the gun. As this is a community (not project) > proposal, we need a Governing Board member(s) to weigh in before we > can > move ahead. > > Eric > >> >> On Mon, 11 Sep 2006, Dan Price wrote: >>> >>> I would like to propose a new community called "Gardeners" based on >>> some recent discussions on opensolaris-code. [1,2] >>> >>> The mission of the community is simple: raise the overall code >>> quality of >>> the system. >>> >>> The intention of the community is to provide a nexus for a group >>> of people >>> who are already active in the community and to attract new talent >>> who >>> share our values. The technical scope of the community is roughly: >>> >>> - Automated code checking (lint, cstyle, check_rpath, etc.) >>> - Care and feeding of the build process >>> - Retiring obsolete subsystems >>> - Other types of code cleanup >>> >>> While this community has some similarity to the Linux "kernel >>> janitors" >>> [3] project, our focus will be more on structural changes than on >>> code >>> examination ("we're not here to sweep up after your broken >>> project"). The >>> community expects that it will necessarily have some overlap with >>> the >>> OS/Net community and with the Tools community. >>> >>> [1] http://www.opensolaris.org/jive/thread.jspa? >>> threadID=12619&tstart=15 >>> [2] http://www.opensolaris.org/jive/thread.jspa? >>> threadID=12928&tstart=0 >>> [3] http://janitor.kernelnewbies.org/ >>> >>> Thanks, >>> >>> -dp >>> >>> -- >>> Daniel Price - Solaris Kernel Engineering - dp at eng.sun.com - >>> blogs.sun.com/dp >>> >> > _______________________________________________ > opensolaris-discuss mailing list > opensolaris-discuss at opensolaris.org From dp at eng.sun.com Mon Sep 18 13:42:24 2006 From: dp at eng.sun.com (Dan Price) Date: Mon, 18 Sep 2006 13:42:24 -0700 Subject: [cab-discuss] Re: [osol-discuss] Community Proposal: Gardeners In-Reply-To: References: <20060911175803.GK8924@eng.sun.com> Message-ID: <20060918204224.GA20952@eng.sun.com> On Wed 13 Sep 2006 at 12:36PM, Eric Boutilier wrote: > On Wed, 13 Sep 2006, Eric Boutilier wrote: > >Thanks, Dan. You have seconds. I'll contact you offline to get > >you set up. > > Correction, I jumped the gun. As this is a community (not project) > proposal, we need a Governing Board member(s) to weigh in before we can > move ahead. It has been seven days but no CAB members have given the proposal either thumbs up or thumbs down... will this proposal eventually be considered to be dead? Or time out? -dp -- Daniel Price - Solaris Kernel Engineering - dp at eng.sun.com - blogs.sun.com/dp From rich.teer at rite-group.com Wed Sep 20 12:08:04 2006 From: rich.teer at rite-group.com (Rich Teer) Date: Wed, 20 Sep 2006 12:08:04 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [cab-discuss] Today's con call--cancelled? Message-ID: HI all, I just tried dialing in, but there was no one there. Is today's call still on? -- Rich Teer, SCNA, SCSA, OpenSolaris CAB member President, Rite Online Inc. Voice: +1 (250) 979-1638 URL: http://www.rite-group.com/rich From benr at cuddletech.com Thu Sep 21 21:42:23 2006 From: benr at cuddletech.com (Ben Rockwood) Date: Thu, 21 Sep 2006 21:42:23 PDT Subject: [cab-discuss] Re: Today's con call--cancelled? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <6124131.1158900173116.JavaMail.Twebapp@oss-app1> Sorry, I was so busy around that time that I forgot about it completely. We need to re-group on organization for the calls moving forward. benr. This message posted from opensolaris.org From sch at eng.sun.com Thu Sep 21 22:04:30 2006 From: sch at eng.sun.com (Stephen Hahn) Date: Thu, 21 Sep 2006 22:04:30 -0700 Subject: [cab-discuss] Re: Today's con call--cancelled? In-Reply-To: <6124131.1158900173116.JavaMail.Twebapp@oss-app1> References: <6124131.1158900173116.JavaMail.Twebapp@oss-app1> Message-ID: <20060922050430.GB1814@eng.sun.com> * Ben Rockwood [2006-09-21 21:43]: > Sorry, I was so busy around that time that I forgot about it > completely. We need to re-group on organization for the calls moving > forward. Actually, folks are supposed to be commenting on the latest revisions by Roy, preferably via the mail threads. No next date was set, as Roy had some edits pending (which may be complete now), and Simon and I need to coordinate calendars to discuss the SMI side of ratification. So: no worries on meeting organization from this week; instead, please put on your official IANAL cap (or robe), reread the current constitution, and comment. - Stephen -- Stephen Hahn, PhD Solaris Kernel Development, Sun Microsystems stephen.hahn at sun.com http://blogs.sun.com/sch/ From al at logical-approach.com Tue Sep 26 10:37:58 2006 From: al at logical-approach.com (Al Hopper) Date: Tue, 26 Sep 2006 12:37:58 -0500 (CDT) Subject: [cab-discuss] conf call Message-ID: Conf call tomorrow Wed Sept 27th at Noon Pacific. Agenda items: Governance review and ratification "Home work": review latest draft Let me know only if you can't make the call. 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 From fielding at gbiv.com Tue Sep 26 13:45:22 2006 From: fielding at gbiv.com (Roy T. Fielding) Date: Tue, 26 Sep 2006 13:45:22 -0700 Subject: [cab-discuss] conf call In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <1C96A4E5-0D2E-4FC4-B53A-D18A3507E2FD@gbiv.com> On Sep 26, 2006, at 10:37 AM, Al Hopper wrote: > Conf call tomorrow Wed Sept 27th at Noon Pacific. > Agenda items: Governance review and ratification > "Home work": review latest draft > > Let me know only if you can't make the call. I am in San Jose today and tomorrow for JSR 283, so won't be able to make the call. That should not stop people from reading the current state of changes and noting if there are any problems. I would like to get rid of the change marks soon, since the larger changes to Article III can't de indicated in that fashion. A server failure at work left me without time to finish the changes, but most is done. I started changing "Groups" to "Community Groups" and "Voting Member" to "Member" to simplify the descriptions, but propagating that to the rest of the document has yet to be done. I might be able to do it tonight from the hotel room. ....Roy From rich.teer at rite-group.com Wed Sep 27 10:01:43 2006 From: rich.teer at rite-group.com (Rich Teer) Date: Wed, 27 Sep 2006 10:01:43 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [cab-discuss] Review comments on Article 2 In-Reply-To: References: <20060802055515.GA134819@eng.sun.com> Message-ID: On Tue, 12 Sep 2006, Roy T. Fielding wrote: > The OpenSolaris Community is a virtual organization of individuals > and companies dedicated to the collaborative production of open I'd delete "and companies". IMO, the OpenSolaris community consists solely of individuals. Also, Para 3.3 of Article IIb says "The OpenSolaris Community recognises four stages of involvement by registered persons". May I suggest that "levels" would be a better word than "stages"? -- 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 Wed Sep 27 12:36:48 2006 From: fielding at gbiv.com (Roy T. Fielding) Date: Wed, 27 Sep 2006 12:36:48 -0700 Subject: [cab-discuss] Review comments on Article 2 In-Reply-To: References: <20060802055515.GA134819@eng.sun.com> Message-ID: On Sep 27, 2006, at 10:01 AM, Rich Teer wrote: > On Tue, 12 Sep 2006, Roy T. Fielding wrote: > >> The OpenSolaris Community is a virtual organization of >> individuals >> and companies dedicated to the collaborative production of open > > I'd delete "and companies". IMO, the OpenSolaris community consists > solely of individuals. > > Also, Para 3.3 of Article IIb says "The OpenSolaris Community > recognises > four stages of involvement by registered persons". May I suggest that > "levels" would be a better word than "stages"? Done. ....Roy From fielding at gbiv.com Wed Sep 27 12:40:32 2006 From: fielding at gbiv.com (Roy T. Fielding) Date: Wed, 27 Sep 2006 12:40:32 -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: <55009E9F-D5E9-42DE-92A8-AA1F8F31D328@gbiv.com> On Aug 1, 2006, at 10:55 PM, Stephen Hahn wrote: > Small corrections: > > 3.2 "by applicable law or regulation" -> "by applicable law, > rule or > regulation" I made this change, but it still looks odd to me. Is that supposed to be "rulings" instead of "rules"? "rules" is just too broad a term to be subject to in general. ....Roy From webmink at sun.com Wed Sep 27 12:59:04 2006 From: webmink at sun.com (Simon Phipps) Date: Wed, 27 Sep 2006 20:59:04 +0100 Subject: [cab-discuss] Review comments on Article 3 In-Reply-To: <55009E9F-D5E9-42DE-92A8-AA1F8F31D328@gbiv.com> References: <20060802055515.GA134836@eng.sun.com> <55009E9F-D5E9-42DE-92A8-AA1F8F31D328@gbiv.com> Message-ID: On Sep 27, 2006, at 20:40, Roy T. Fielding wrote: > On Aug 1, 2006, at 10:55 PM, Stephen Hahn wrote: > >> Small corrections: >> >> 3.2 "by applicable law or regulation" -> "by applicable law, >> rule or >> regulation" > > I made this change, but it still looks odd to me. Is that supposed > to be "rulings" instead of "rules"? "rules" is just too broad a term > to be subject to in general. Yes, I'd like to understand what extra context this allows for as well. S.