On Dec 11, 2007 5:34 PM, Roy T. Fielding <fielding at gbiv.com> wrote: > On Dec 11, 2007, at 2:20 PM, Shawn Walker wrote: > > Right. I was referencing Roy's implications that many of the areas of > > control had been defined during the charter definition process. > > > > He implied that there was a full definition that was private to OGB > > members and that was not publicly available. > > No I did not. You implied it was private. I just said it took place. > I don't know which of the four or five recorded archive locations, > genunix history, forums, or notes has it in public form, nor do > I care to speculate.
I asked if they were publicly available. You responded with: How else am I supposed to interpret that? > Since I wrote that part of the constitution (with full awareness > of the charter) and it was agreed to by Sun (with full awareness > of what infrastructure we were talking about), your issue has been > resolved simply by me telling you what it means. Trust has nothing Wow; there's that "trust me" again. Despite your assurances other individuals have already posted that they too believe that there is not a clear definition of these areas that you purport to exist. > change the charter directly. The only entity with sufficient > standing to disagree with my statement is Sun itself and we have > no power over Sun to resolve such disagreement short of dissolving > the charter and starting over. In any case, Sun has not disagreed, > so this whole day has been wasted pandering to your whims rather > than to a real concern. At last check, most sane individuals would not consider responding to genuine concerns from a community member "pandering to your whims". It is unfortunate that you do not see them as real concerns, but that is your perception, not mine. > The issue is resolved: the charter's limitation on control over > Sun's assets and resources refers specifically to the legal and > accounting notions of ownership/assignment of assets; it does not > contradict the OGB's full and complete power to make or delegate > policy decisions regarding what is published on the opensolaris.org > infrastructure, provided of course that such publication does not > violate applicable laws, regulations, etc. Any trademark owner, Recent events prove that it is not resolved. If it was truly resolved, then why did we have flamewars and disagreements over it? Why was their an OGB meeting discussion actions regarding it? If this was truly resolved, and well known, why did these events happen? I think recent events have proved that this is indeed not resolved as you claim it to be. > If one of Sun's lawyers wants to pick a fight on that issue, > then I will either set them straight or allow the community to I have no idea if one of Sun's lawyers wants to since I do not and have not ever worked for Sun, one of it's subsidiaries, affiliates, business partners or anyone else connected to Sun in any way shape or form. > be flushed. Either way, we don't need a Devil's advocate, at > least not until the Devil earns his way as a core contributor. > We have enough barriers already without inventing ones that > don't yet exist. Quite frankly; I resent that remark: * I participate on multiple discussion lists as an active community member that is genuinely concerned about the growth and direction of the community. * I assist others with Solaris/OpenSolaris-related issues that I am familiar with and have done so since I started using Solaris/OpenSolaris in 2005. * I file bug reports on new builds that are made available in great detail. * I review code postings and even some documentation when the opportunity arises. * I post short articles on how to resolve issues with Solaris and my own development experiences. * I contribute code to the ON consolidation. * I attended the OpenSolaris Developer summit. * My contributions are of a sustained nature. In any other open source project I've participated in, the above activities is more than sufficient to earn the equivalence of "core contributor" status. If the above activities aren't sufficient to be a core contributor; then this community is doomed to failure. Pray tell, what other reasonable definition of a core contributor must one meet? If this is how the "goodship OpenSolaris" is intended to be run, then we might as well call it the "goodship Titanic"; because this's ship's going down. -- Shawn Walker, Software and Systems Analyst http://binarycrusader.blogspot.com/ "To err is human -- and to blame it on a computer is even more so." - Robert Orben -- Shawn Walker, Software and Systems Analyst http://binarycrusader.blogspot.com/ "To err is human -- and to blame it on a computer is even more so." - Robert Orben
