On Nov 2, 2007, at 2:51 PM, Shawn Walker wrote: > On 02/11/2007, Roy T. Fielding <fielding at gbiv.com> wrote: >> On Nov 2, 2007, at 2:25 PM, Shawn Walker wrote: >> >>> On 02/11/2007, Roy T. Fielding <fielding at gbiv.com> wrote: >>>> On Nov 2, 2007, at 1:58 PM, Glynn Foster wrote: >>>>> Alan Coopersmith wrote: >>>>>> 1) Inform all three of Indiana's sponsoring communities about the >>>>>> release >>>>>> plans requirement of the constitution. >>>>> >>>>> Awesome, yet another way of slowing down getting software to our >>>>> users. Anything >>>>> else we can do to get in the way? >>>> >>>> If you had initiated the project within a community that was scoped >>>> for building a distribution, then that decision would have been >>>> made >>>> already and by the very same people who did the work to produce the >>>> software. >>>> >>>> I told you this at the time the project was proposed, and you >>>> ignored >>>> it to satisfy the immediate desire of the internal marketing team >>>> at Sun. Don't blame anyone else for these problems -- they are >>>> entirely manufactured by your refusal to accept community input >>>> from >>>> day one, and they will continue until the organization reflects the >>>> reality of how you intend to govern this project (one way or >>>> another). >>> >>> Sorry, but that's wrong. There is currently nothing in the >>> constitution that stipulates that projects must live under a certain >>> community. Your claim otherwise is surprising given you drafted the >>> constitution. >> >> Please, get a grip. The constitution has requirements on documented >> scope, that all activity be within that scope, and that all projects >> be managed by a community with said scope. If there was a distro >> community in place, as suggested before, then it would already >> have discussed these issues and voted on them long before now. >> That is how open development works. > > My point was there is nothing in the constitution that says it has to > live under a distribution community; obviously it has to live under > *a* community. Which is why I said "under *a certain* community." Your > implication was that it had to live under a distribution community. As > far as scope of that activity; that is open to interpretation.
No. Read what I wrote and responded to -- I said that the "yet another way of slowing down" and "get in the way" that Glynn complained about was directly due to the inefficient and inappropriate placement of Indiana, and subsequent failure to conduct its work in the open, against the advice given at the time it was originally proposed to the OGB. Your opinion about what is not stipulated in the constitution is irrelevant to this thread. The constitution will not prevent stupid decisions from getting in the way of work -- the only way to prevent that is to have the people who are doing the work make the actual decisions within the scope they have been assigned by the OGB, and that is what the constitution stipulates. ....Roy
