[osol-discuss] Re: [ogb-discuss] Re: Project Proposal - (what is/was Indiana)

[Stephen Lau]

Dave Miner wrote:
> Bonnie Corwin wrote:
>> Keith M Wesolowski wrote:
>>> On Wed, May 30, 2007 at 06:57:32PM -0500, Eric Boutilier wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>> On Wed, 30 May 2007, Keith M Wesolowski wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On Thu, May 31, 2007 at 10:41:52AM +1200, Glynn Foster wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> The process requires that this be sent to one or more community groups
>>>>> for sponsorship consideration...
>>>> I don't agree. Here's how I'd put it: "The almost-but-not-quite-yet OGB
>>>> blessed project instantiation draft proposal will require
>>>> that this be sent... etc."
>>>
>>> It was approved in the public and open April 25th meeting, the minutes
>>> of which reflect that approval and were posted as required.
>>> Subsequent feedback is a basis for modifying the policy; it is not a
>>> barrier to its implementation.  No one read the final document and the
>>> minutes and said "This is not the policy we approved; a new vote is
>>> needed."  We simply cannot allow cycles of feedback, however
>>> constructive and worthwhile, to delay indefinitely the adoption and
>>> implementation of a policy that has already been approved in
>>> accordance with the Constitution.
>>>
>>> In short: The policy was approved by the OGB and that approval was
>>> communicated to the community in accordance with the Constitution.  It
>>> is in effect, and project teams are expected to follow it.
>>
>> I'm sorry, but this doesn't work.
>>
>> You can not expect community members to read all minutes from all OGB 
>> meetings (which don't happen regularly) to see if decisions were made 
>> that change policies and processes for OpenSolaris.
>>
>> We have an -announce alias.  We have process directions on various web 
>> pages.
>>
>> How does it make any sense to say that something approved in a meeting 
>> and captured in minutes is now policy that everyone has to follow? 
>> When there was no announcement, there are no new directions posted, 
>> and Eric's repeated emails saying he was continuing to set up projects 
>> using the old process were ignored.
>>
> 
> I'm with Bonnie here.  So far, it seems that the OGB expects all of us 
> to follow the discussions on ogb-discuss in order to know about 
> significant changes in policy.  I'm also perturbed at the amount of 
> discussion that's apparently occurred about re-organizing communities, 
> yet as a leader of a community which is apparently subject to some 
> change here, I've had *zero* communication with the OGB on the topic.

That's my fault; my original proposal got lots of feedback, and I need 
to make some fairly substantial revisions.

I've been out for a month (wedding/honeymoon/vacation), so nothing has 
happened in the past month re: this proposal.  I need to incorporate a 
lot of the feedback and start discussions with the community groups 
regarding the matter.

cheers,
steve
-- 
stephen lau // stevel at sun.com | 650.786.0845 | http://whacked.net
opensolaris // solaris kernel development