[cab-discuss] CAB conf call

[Simon Phipps]

On Feb 7, 2007, at 20:00, Roy T. Fielding wrote:

> On Feb 7, 2007, at 3:35 PM, Simon Phipps wrote:
>> I am dismayed to see the OGB statement that has already been  
>> propagated. I feel my perspective has not been considered and  
>> given the short notice at which the meeting was called I feel it  
>> would have been appropriate to take longer reflecting before  
>> issuing a position statement, especially considering how  
>> controversial the issue is and how polarised opinions are.
>
> I think that, given the topic and the nature of the legal issues
> involved, the subject should have been broached with the OGB
> before it was made into a PR topic by Sun officials.  The subsequent
> damage to everyone's productivity could have been avoided with
> a more balanced and reasonable approach to the whole discussion.

I agree. That does not mean the OGB has to respond in kind.

>
> In particular, making predictions about an unreleased version of the
> GPLv3 draft that is not yet subject to public review, and then asking
> the whole community to comment on potential ramifications of that
> unknown draft's use for OpenSolaris, is an irresponsible action.  
> Period.

I agree. Again, that does not mean the OGB has to respond in kind.

>
>> While the summary is reasonable, it is incomplete and the  
>> conclusions and "decree" are one-sided. I'd suggest this sort of  
>> kangaroo-court behaviour is unacceptable and I'd request that it  
>> not be repeated.
>
> The OGB (or any deliberative body) cannot be hamstrung from action
> just because one of its members happens to be off-line without telling
> any of us.  I don't expect the group to abdicate responsibility  
> whenever
> I am not available, and neither should you.

I disagree. While routine and urgent actions need to be taken in the  
way you describe, the subject is too complex and sensitive to wind up  
so hurriedly and the outcome smacks of a rush to judgement. While the  
group was within its rights to act, common sense should have dictated  
that a more considered approach be taken.

>
> Two days was enough notice given that it was our regularly scheduled
> time slot, the affirmative votes were more than necessary to pass
> the resolution even if you had been there to participate, we already
> knew about and took into consideration the views you expressed, and
> if you don't like the resolution then you can raise the issue again
> at our next meeting.

Indeed I shall. You did not seek my view and you have no idea what it  
is as I have not expressed it publicly. Neither has there been any  
discussion by the OGB outside the meeting held today beyond the  
limited elements we are aware prior to this controversy. Please do  
not make these assumptions about my prejudice just because you assume  
I am Sun's stooge; it is beneath you and I am not.

>
> That is the process we have defined.
>
> In the future, you should look up the definition of kangaroo
> court before throwing it around.  It is just a decision, like
> any other, and the OGB is the right entity to make it.

I hope you feel the same in a similar circumstance where the outcome  
is not one you find acceptable. My choice of language reflects the  
depth of my feeling and the lack of respect I feel has been expressed  
towards me. Just because I am British it doesn't mean I don't  
understand English you know.

S.