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

[Dave Miner]

Stephen Lau wrote:
> 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.
> 

Thanks for following up, Steve, I'd forgotten you were gallivanting the 
globe.  You are all pretty communicative individually in my experience, 
so I found the situation somewhat mystifying.  One suggestion which may 
be helpful (it would at least help me ;-) would be to set up an RSS feed 
for OGB meeting minutes (and of course publish them in a timely fashion).

Dave