[ogb-discuss] OpenSolaris.org Editorial Committee

[Derek Cicero]

Simon Phipps wrote:
> On Dec 20, 2007, at 19:06, James Carlson wrote:
> 
>> That's not at all what I suggested.  Instead, if you look back at the
>> message I was responding to, Simon Phipps was supposing that we would
>> have opensolaris.org editorial changes that come from no community
>> group at all:
> 
> You're misunderstanding me, and I'll assume for now that it's not  
> wilful, although it seems increasingly likely to me that there's a  
> continuation of an earlier witch-hunt in progress here.
> 
> I sense a belief here that I am trying to "carve out control for Sun"  
> here. I am not. My concern is that a bias against "marketing" by some  
> members of the OGB is leading to unwise, skewed and discriminatory  
> decisions that are not in the best interest of the community.

I agree. I feel like we have now reached the point where we are trying 
to solve imaginary problems. As the person that has made 98% of the 
actual the changes to the site since inception, it seems like we are 
adding way too much process as the result of *one* case.

I propose we go with my original suggestion, which is that there is a 
project/community call-out section on the home page (similar to how 
Indiana was featured) and it rotates a few times a year. Projects and 
and communities send their proposed content to the website-content list, 
we mock something up and send it out for X days of feedback. If the 
change is controversial then someone can take it to the appeals board, 
but let's start with a simple, straightforward solution based on how 
we've been operating - with an extra check - before turning this into 
the Dept of Homepage Security.

Derek

> 
> I am saying that at present there are many elements in the web site -  
> news & blog feeds, graphics, style sheets, just for example - and  
> that as far as I can see the new, OGB-created structure of Website CG  
> and review committee has no place in which they can be created or  
> managed by people with content expertise. Similarly, although there  
> is a committee to review the work of editors, there is no place for  
> editors to do their work of arranging and adjusting content for the  
> greatest value.
> 
> Hence I assert that there no community group to manage this content  
> and contribution. Hence I assert it is non-CG originated. I assume  
> the OGB is implying that all this stuff is of no consequence, or so  
> easy any community member can be expected to create it from nothing  
> without recognition. I suggest that view is incorrect, and there is a  
> great big hole in your plans. When you hacked Alan B's proposal, you  
> left a part on the floor.
> 
>> Until it's been proven otherwise, I'm going to assume that the people
>> chosen for the committee are reasonable people who can make some
>> reasonable choices.
> 
> 
> Except Rich has explicitly stated he does not expect the OGB  
> committee to do anything other than audit the work of others. He does  
> not envisage them editing HTML, it seems, or designing style sheets,  
> or devising colour schemes, or selecting articles for display, or  
> indeed editing them to maintain quality standards.
> 
> S.
> _______________________________________________
> ogb-discuss mailing list
> ogb-discuss at opensolaris.org
> http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/ogb-discuss
> 


-- 
Derek Cicero
Program Manager
Solaris Kernel Group, Software Division