> >>And, yes, does it matter that Sun holds a large stake in this
> >>community, PAYS the vast majority of people here for the privilege of
> >>being able to spend their days doing what they love, gets flamed
> >>repeatedly by many of those same people for our trouble, and in return
> >>thinks it reasonable to have _some_ say in how the community functions?
> >>Or is that a sign of evil intentions? Do we have to completely
> >>abdicate to "be community"? Isn't that taxation without representation?
> >>
> >>Or is all that insignificant, irrelevant? We haven't given everything,
> >>so therefore we've given nothing?
> >>
> >>I'm sorry, but I just don't get it. Not in the least bit.
> >>
> >
> >I assume that you actually _do_ get it -- that your plea of ignorance is
> >rhetorical ploy and not an actual confession of limited mental capacity --
> >but for the sake of argument, allow me to clarify: the issue is
> >nomenclature. That's it; it's not more complicated than that. As members
> >of our community's elected body have made exhaustively clear, there is
> >a consensus that a single OpenSolaris-derived distribution -- even one
> >emanating from Sun -- should not have exclusive use of the name
> >"OpenSolaris". That is, a distribution should be allowed to be derived
> >from OpenSolaris, but no one distribution should be allowed to simply
> >_be_ OpenSolaris.
> >
>
> There has absolutely not been consensus reached.
Really? I'm looking at the OGB members weighing in on Keith's proposal
(OGB/2007/004) on ogb-discuss, and it sure looks like rough consensus to
me -- and I think that the OGB sentiment is pretty representative of what
we're seeing on the larger lists. I guess we'll see when the OGB votes
on this next Wednesday, but I don't see the evidence to conclude that
the OGB is not converging on this issue.
> >So I guess it's my turn to say that I don't get it: given that this is
> >such a small issue -- and one in which our elected body is so clearly
> >speaking with one voice -- why do you insist on persisting down what is
> >clearly such a divisive path?
> >
>
> This is obviously NOT a small issue.
Well, of course not -- nomenclature is very important. But I think it's
quite small in terms of the success of Indiana (as others have pointed
out, the positive reviews have nothing to do with the nomenclature), which
is why I'm a bit baffled as to why this divisive path has not only been
taken, but insisted upon...
- Bryan
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bryan Cantrill, Sun Microsystems FishWorks. http://blogs.sun.com/bmc
