On Oct 19, 2007, at 09:57, Keith M Wesolowski wrote: > > Think about what you're saying. A CG (by definition likely to be > comprised of like-minded people) can make decisions for everyone and,
Happens all the time. > as long as they voted properly, no one else can ever appeal that > decision. In what universe does this reading of the Constitution make > any sense at all? I agree with the part about appeals. > Why are you trying so hard to devolve authority over such a > fundamental question of identity to a single CG? Bluntly, this looks > like nothing so much as venue shopping - which I guess shouldn't be > surprising given this project team's track record. That's pretty offensive, Keith. It's time to work to resolve this ongoing dispute rather than exacerbate it. My proposal is to do so by seeking consensus around work in the Advocacy group, and Sara brought a good set of proposals to the Summit at the weekend which were not immediately trashed by the attendees and which that group could work with. > With that in mind, > why not just have the Desktop Group name it "The OpenSolaris Desktop > Distribution"? Or maybe have the Security Group name it "The Secure > OpenSolaris Distribution"? Nothing wrong with letting them all > craftily imply that they speak for all of us. Because brand and marketing is a specialisation that needs experience and expertise. It is highly appropriate to have that work conducted in a place those specialists meet rather than all over the place since the latter relies on everyone being a polymath. S.
