Bonnie Corwin wrote: > Keith M Wesolowski wrote: >> On Wed, May 30, 2007 at 06:57:32PM -0500, Eric Boutilier wrote: >> >> >>> On Wed, 30 May 2007, Keith M Wesolowski wrote: >>> >>>> On Thu, May 31, 2007 at 10:41:52AM +1200, Glynn Foster wrote: >>>> >>>> The process requires that this be sent to one or more community groups >>>> for sponsorship consideration... >>> I don't agree. Here's how I'd put it: "The almost-but-not-quite-yet OGB >>> blessed project instantiation draft proposal will require >>> that this be sent... etc." >> >> It was approved in the public and open April 25th meeting, the minutes >> of which reflect that approval and were posted as required. >> Subsequent feedback is a basis for modifying the policy; it is not a >> barrier to its implementation. No one read the final document and the >> minutes and said "This is not the policy we approved; a new vote is >> needed." We simply cannot allow cycles of feedback, however >> constructive and worthwhile, to delay indefinitely the adoption and >> implementation of a policy that has already been approved in >> accordance with the Constitution. >> >> In short: The policy was approved by the OGB and that approval was >> communicated to the community in accordance with the Constitution. It >> is in effect, and project teams are expected to follow it. > > I'm sorry, but this doesn't work. > > You can not expect community members to read all minutes from all OGB > meetings (which don't happen regularly) to see if decisions were made > that change policies and processes for OpenSolaris. > > We have an -announce alias. We have process directions on various web > pages. > > How does it make any sense to say that something approved in a meeting > and captured in minutes is now policy that everyone has to follow? > When there was no announcement, there are no new directions posted, and > Eric's repeated emails saying he was continuing to set up projects using > the old process were ignored. >
I'm with Bonnie here. So far, it seems that the OGB expects all of us to follow the discussions on ogb-discuss in order to know about significant changes in policy. I'm also perturbed at the amount of discussion that's apparently occurred about re-organizing communities, yet as a leader of a community which is apparently subject to some change here, I've had *zero* communication with the OGB on the topic. Dave
