Nicholas Solter writes: > The OGB resolution at hand seems to me to be unnecessarily > obstructionist. That is, it simply says that Indiana can't call itself > OpenSolaris without specifying what needs to take place for Indiana to > start calling itself OpenSolaris.
It cites the lack of a trademark policy and identifies that and future engagement as a path forward. > There's only a vague reference to > endorsement of the community. What does that mean? If it's simply a > vote, can't we just put it to a vote and get it over with? You'd think. The proponents of the single "OpenSolaris distribution" have been quite vocal in opposing such a vote and asking for lengthy delays -- several months of delay in fact. Don't get me wrong. We're actually supportive of the project as well, despite the bizarre new-agey claims of creating "stop energy." The problem is that we _also_ have to be protective of the community's ability to govern itself, and part of that ability is in determining core features, such as the existence of an exclusive reference distribution. That belongs to the wider community, not one project team. We can't abdicate that responsibility. If we do, then we just don't exist. -- James Carlson, Solaris Networking <james.d.carlson at sun.com> Sun Microsystems / 35 Network Drive 71.232W Vox +1 781 442 2084 MS UBUR02-212 / Burlington MA 01803-2757 42.496N Fax +1 781 442 1677
