[cab-discuss] CAB conf call

[Eric Boutilier]

On Thu, 8 Feb 2007, Simon Phipps wrote:
>
> On Feb 8, 2007, at 07:54, Eric Boutilier wrote:
>
>> 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.
>
> Sorry, Eric, just completely outside my control. The conference venue in SF 
> turned out to have lousy WiFi and Sun had my schedule booked absolutely solid 
> preventing a trip to Starbucks during opening hours. Sometimes these things 
> happen. Usually folk would have sufficient respect for one another for them 
> not to become an issue.
>
> S.
>

As odd as this may sound, I actually think that for you the
concerns of the OGB and the OpenSolaris community (especially
under these circumstances) are a higher priority than the
analyst conference. Believe it or not.

Eric