On Wed, 4 Apr 2007, Keith M Wesolowski wrote: > On Wed, Apr 04, 2007 at 08:32:30PM -0500, Eric Boutilier wrote: > >> +1. And to throw in 2 more cents: I think it's safe to assume that the >> prevention of OGB-Paralysis -- like what resulted from the inflexibility >> demonstrated at today's meeting due to the invocation of a strict >> intepretation of the letter of section 6.7 -- is a very strong and >> universal desire. Therefore an agile resolution (read non-complex, >> non-resource-intensive, and, perhaps, non-perfect resolution) to this issue >> is called for. > > Forgive me for being defensive, but I don't believe this interpretation is > incorrect, nor that that it led to any form of paralysis.
Clearly it did though. > We'll be meeting next week, same bat-time, same bat-channel - A week's time == a week's time no matter how you slice it. > only this time you and others > will be able to listen in and perhaps even ask questions. If we'd gone > ahead with our meeting, there would undoubtedly have been complaints that > we're not sufficiently open; that's not a good way to start the year. No doubt that I believe (more than you do anyway) that it's possible to be excessively correct. We've disagreed in similar ways in the past enough that I think we'll have to learn to live with that fact. Eric > > -- > Keith M Wesolowski "Sir, we're surrounded!" > FishWorks "Excellent; we can attack in any direction!" > _______________________________________________ > ogb-discuss mailing list > ogb-discuss at opensolaris.org > http://opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/ogb-discuss >
