Brandorr wrote: > On Nov 11, 2007 3:56 PM, Ben Rockwood <benr at cuddletech.com> wrote: > >> Simon Phipps wrote: >> >>> On Nov 11, 2007, at 01:40, Ben Rockwood wrote: >>> >>> >>>> I submit to the Chairman of the OpenSolaris Governing Board a motion to >>>> be placed on the agenda of the next scheduled meeting of the OGB, the >>>> following: >>>> >>>> To support, as a solution acceptable to the community, with the desire >>>> of finding a mutually agreeable long term solution to the current issues >>>> facing the community, the naming proposal set forth by Ben Rockwood in >>>> the following Open Letter: >>>> http://cuddletech.com/blog/pivot/entry.php?id=875 >>>> >>>> >>>> I ask for the support of the board in this matter and to, without delay, >>>> move this motion toward a formal vote at the soonest possible >>>> opportunity. >>>> >>>> >>>> Thank you for your earnest consideration. >>>> >>>> Ben Rockwood >>>> >>> That's a very interesting suggestion. However, I'd suggest it would be >>> better to discuss it on the trademark-policy-dev list than >>> unilaterally propose it as a board motion. That the place we've all >>> set up for this sort of discussion. >>> >> We're talked... and talked.... and talked. The results haven't been >> forthcoming. It's time for action before the situation further degrades. >> > > Actually, we stopped talking when the naming "announcement" came out, > as everyone involved was a bit distracted. Since Mr Franklin's (Sun's) > acknowledgment of the community's concerns on Friday, I think it is > time that we got back to that discussion. At this point, we can write > 20 different detailed proposals for the OGB, but I think the idea is > to get a community proposal going, vs. "Brian Gupta's", "Ian > Murdock's" or "Ben Rockwood's". John P. has been doing a good job > trying to incorporate desperate viewpoints in his policy document. > > I am ready to continue this discussion on > trademark-policy-dev at opensolaris.org. I hope that we can now move > forward towards a coherent naming policy. (Let's try and start where > we can find agreement... I think there is some agreement, that there > needs to be a policy in place. >
We must be very clear, we have no control over the trademark. We simply have the ability to provide guidelines to Sun, to be blunt: "Here's how you don't piss us off." The situation we find ourselves in requires more than this. Sun believes it has found the solution and is pushing forward with it. Thus, the key is to immediately provide alternative naming recommendations and change opinion within Sun, regain our equilibrium, and then to backfill our trademark guidelines after the fact. This isn't about Ian, Ben, Brian, John or anyone... it's about the community and our future success, together. I fully intend to push my proposal for a formal vote by the OGB as soon as possible; if there are alternative proposals I suggest gathering them and pushing them toward the board and Sun as quickly as possible. benr.
