I think that's reasonable. My reason for the second question was because perhaps there are those who think that there should be a binary opensolaris distro, and it should be (schillix|nexenta|martux|belenix) . If there was a way to make the second question contingent on the first it would be ideal.
On Thu, Feb 21, 2008 at 6:33 PM, Nicholas Solter <Nicholas.Solter at sun.com> wrote: > John, > > I think taking a poll on this topic is a reasonable step. However, we > should be conscious of the fact that the way the questions are worded > can influence the outcome. For example, I suspect that a question worded > like, "Should there be a binary distribution of OpenSolaris called > 'OpenSolaris'" would garner a different result than the wording you > proposed. Additionally, placing the question about Indiana immediately > after the generic binary distribution question may influence people to > vote against the first question. > > So let's strive for neutrality in the questions, and be cautious in our > interpretations of the results :-) > > Thanks, > Nick > > > > John Sonnenschein wrote: > > I could not find any documentation on the proper way to go about > > adding questions to the ballot, but as a plebiscite I'd like the > > following to be placed on the ballot. > > > > * Should the OpenSolaris community allow a distribution to carry the > > canonical name "OpenSolaris" [ ] yes [ ] no > > * If the previous passes, should this distribution be that currently > > known as "Project Indiana" [ ] yes [ ] no > > > > I think it would be a good move for the community to finally express > > their will on the matter, so that we can all either move on or ask the > > OGB to take further action. I know I for one would be willing to stop > > fighting if I saw a definitive mandate from the community that this > > were to be the case. > > > > > > -- > Nicholas Solter, Solaris Cluster Development > http://blogs.sun.com/nsolter > -- PGP Public Key 0x437AF1A1 Available on hkp://pgp.mit.edu
