Fwd: [cab-discuss] CAB conf call

[Eric Boutilier]

On Thu, 8 Feb 2007, John Plocher wrote:
> Casper.Dik at Sun.COM wrote:
>>> This meeting was scheduled at 21 hours notice, not two days.
>> 
>> I think it was clear that the meeting was going to be held as soon as
>> Al floated the CAB position paper.
>> 
>> There was also a feeling that the CAB had to meet in order to prevent
>> it from being overtaken by events.
>
>
> The CAB could have simply released its draft in progress with
> the comment that since its creation was rushed and not all the
> CAB members had been given reasonable time to review/participate
> in its drafting, it and its ratification/official publishing
> would be the topic of the /next/ weeks CAB conf call...
>
> Whether or not one agrees with the content, the manner that this
> was accomplished leaves a very sour taste in my mouth.
>
> It is odd that, on the one hand, it is somehow OK for the SCM,
> Bug and community infrastructure stuff to be inaccessible and
> incomplete after almost 2 years, but that this, the first formal
> "referee decision" from the CAB/OGB ///had/// to be done in less
> than 48 hours.
>
> -1 on form.
>
>  -John


I think mistakes were made on both sides, with one being a
little bigger than the other:

Given that a board member was missing and unaccounted for,
the timing of the posting of a ratified opinion feels like an
error to me.

An OGB member not showing up and not checking in to see if a
meeting was on (especially under these circumstances) feels
like an error to me too.

The 2nd seems a bit more heedless than the first though.

Eric