[ogb-discuss] Website content control?

[Al Hopper]

On Tue, 11 Dec 2007, Roy T. Fielding wrote:

> On Dec 11, 2007, at 3:51 PM, Shawn Walker wrote:
>
>> On Dec 11, 2007 5:34 PM, Roy T. Fielding <fielding at gbiv.com> wrote:
>>> On Dec 11, 2007, at 2:20 PM, Shawn Walker wrote:
>>>> Right. I was referencing Roy's implications that many of the
>>>> areas of
>>>> control had been defined during the charter definition process.
>>>>
>>>> He implied that there was a full definition that was private to OGB
>>>> members and that was not publicly available.
>>>
>>> No I did not.  You implied it was private.  I just said it took
>>> place.
>>> I don't know which of the four or five recorded archive locations,
>>> genunix history, forums, or notes has it in public form, nor do
>>> I care to speculate.
>>
>> I asked if they were publicly available. You responded with:
>>
>> How else am I supposed to interpret that?
>
> By reading what I wrote, not inventing other things.
>
>>> Since I wrote that part of the constitution (with full awareness
>>> of the charter) and it was agreed to by Sun (with full awareness
>>> of what infrastructure we were talking about), your issue has been
>>> resolved simply by me telling you what it means.  Trust has nothing
>>
>> Wow; there's that "trust me" again.
>>
>> Despite your assurances other individuals have already posted that
>> they too believe that there is not a clear definition of these areas
>> that you purport to exist.
>
> Then search the archives for them.  I already know the answer
> because I was the one doing the work.
>
>>> change the charter directly.  The only entity with sufficient
>>> standing to disagree with my statement is Sun itself and we have
>>> no power over Sun to resolve such disagreement short of dissolving
>>> the charter and starting over.  In any case, Sun has not disagreed,
>>> so this whole day has been wasted pandering to your whims rather
>>> than to a real concern.
>>
>> At last check, most sane individuals would not consider responding to
>> genuine concerns from a community member "pandering to your whims".
>>
>> It is unfortunate that you do not see them as real concerns, but that
>> is your perception, not mine.
>
> I have a real concern that I will be hit by a bus while walking
> across the street.  I don't need to see that in the charter either,
> at least not until it becomes a relevant concern.
>
>>> The issue is resolved: the charter's limitation on control over
>>> Sun's assets and resources refers specifically to the legal and
>>> accounting notions of ownership/assignment of assets; it does not
>>> contradict the OGB's full and complete power to make or delegate
>>> policy decisions regarding what is published on the opensolaris.org
>>> infrastructure, provided of course that such publication does not
>>> violate applicable laws, regulations, etc.  Any trademark owner,
>>
>> Recent events prove that it is not resolved. If it was truly resolved,
>> then why did we have flamewars and disagreements over it?
>
> Bullshit.  Recent events prove only that some individuals have a
> complete disregard for the community decision-making as it is
> already described in the constitution.  Had the same individuals
> made the same contributions on a public list, brought it to a
> vote (if controversial), and allowed the community to make a decision,
> then there would not have been a flamefest about Sun making decisions
> behind closed doors in spite of the constitution.  None of this has
> anything whatsoever to do with your interpretation of the charter,
> which is not shared by the OGB or Sun and thus is moot.
>
>> Why was their an OGB meeting discussion actions regarding it?
>>
>> If this was truly resolved, and well known, why did these events
>> happen?
>>
>> I think recent events have proved that this is indeed not resolved as
>> you claim it to be.
>
> It is completely resolved. Resolved is not the same as being obeyed.
> Maybe you haven't noticed, but the people who agreed to the charter
> and the constitution are not the same people who are in charge now,
> nor do they seem to have the same opinion on democratic process.
>
> You aren't asking that these issues be resolved -- what you are
> claiming is that the OGB has no power to resolve them.  Basically,
> that the OGB can't act because you choose to interpret the charter
> in your own special way. Well, in this case, I do know better and
> I did discuss it with Sun's representatives and I gave you the
> answer that was agreed to by all parties at that time.  Whether
> or not you trust me is irrelevant.
>
>>> If one of Sun's lawyers wants to pick a fight on that issue,
>>> then I will either set them straight or allow the community to
>>
>> I have no idea if one of Sun's lawyers wants to since I do not and
>> have not ever worked for Sun, one of it's subsidiaries, affiliates,
>> business partners or anyone else connected to Sun in any way shape or
>> form.
>>
>>> be flushed.  Either way, we don't need a Devil's advocate, at
>>> least not until the Devil earns his way as a core contributor.
>>> We have enough barriers already without inventing ones that
>>> don't yet exist.
>>
>> Quite frankly; I resent that remark:
>
> You are the one who claimed that you were the Devil's advocate.
> If you want to state your own opinions, then state them.  If you
> need to remove a barrier, then put forth a resolution to remove it.
> Your issue is the reverse -- you want to make it harder for the OGB
> to resolve the issue in accordance to the constitution, and I cannot
> fathom why you would want to do that.  You are casting FUD.
>
> If your issue is that you don't know how to interpret the charter,
> then the answer (the only answer, in fact) is to ask the people
> who wrote and agreed to it.  Your opinion does not matter in such
> a discussion, period, no matter how many great things you do for
> OpenSolaris.  The only reason MY opinion matters is because I wrote
> the words, negotiated the agreement, and voted to make it binding.
> That makes me a principle and my clarification a binding statement.
> Go ahead and ask a lawyer if you don't know why that is important
> and why you don't need to "trust me" to accept it as stated.  The
> only way you can do better is to get another binding statement
> from Sun's legal representative, which is usually a long and painful
> process and no more effective than just letting the OGB act and
> then wait until Sun actually objects to some action of the OGB.
> What Sun does is far more important than what Sun agreed to do.

+1

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 Governing Board (OGB) Member - Apr 2005 to Mar 2007
http://www.opensolaris.org/os/community/ogb/ogb_2005-2007/
Graduate from "sugar-coating school"?  Sorry - I never attended! :)