On 04/04/07, Keith M Wesolowski <keith.wesolowski at sun.com> 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. We'll be meeting next week, same bat-time, same > bat-channel - 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.
While I admire your strong desire for "transparency," I sincerely doubt most reasonable folks would consider the meeting to not be "sufficiently open" as long as you provided public meeting minutes. As a reasonable (IMO :)), non Sun-affiliated individual, I think today's meeting was reasonably open *in effective communication* and that it was a bit over reactive to proclaim it otherwise. -- "Less is only more where more is no good." --Frank Lloyd Wright Shawn Walker, Software and Systems Analyst binarycrusader at gmail.com - http://binarycrusader.blogspot.com/
