On Dec 11, 2007, at 3:51 PM, Shawn Walker wrote: > 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?
By reading what I wrote, not inventing other things. >> 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. Then search the archives for them. I already know the answer because I was the one doing the work. >> 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. I have a real concern that I will be hit by a bus while walking across the street. I don't need to see that in the charter either, at least not until it becomes a relevant concern. >> 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? Bullshit. Recent events prove only that some individuals have a complete disregard for the community decision-making as it is already described in the constitution. Had the same individuals made the same contributions on a public list, brought it to a vote (if controversial), and allowed the community to make a decision, then there would not have been a flamefest about Sun making decisions behind closed doors in spite of the constitution. None of this has anything whatsoever to do with your interpretation of the charter, which is not shared by the OGB or Sun and thus is moot. > 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. It is completely resolved. Resolved is not the same as being obeyed. Maybe you haven't noticed, but the people who agreed to the charter and the constitution are not the same people who are in charge now, nor do they seem to have the same opinion on democratic process. You aren't asking that these issues be resolved -- what you are claiming is that the OGB has no power to resolve them. Basically, that the OGB can't act because you choose to interpret the charter in your own special way. Well, in this case, I do know better and I did discuss it with Sun's representatives and I gave you the answer that was agreed to by all parties at that time. Whether or not you trust me is irrelevant. >> 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: You are the one who claimed that you were the Devil's advocate. If you want to state your own opinions, then state them. If you need to remove a barrier, then put forth a resolution to remove it. Your issue is the reverse -- you want to make it harder for the OGB to resolve the issue in accordance to the constitution, and I cannot fathom why you would want to do that. You are casting FUD. If your issue is that you don't know how to interpret the charter, then the answer (the only answer, in fact) is to ask the people who wrote and agreed to it. Your opinion does not matter in such a discussion, period, no matter how many great things you do for OpenSolaris. The only reason MY opinion matters is because I wrote the words, negotiated the agreement, and voted to make it binding. That makes me a principle and my clarification a binding statement. Go ahead and ask a lawyer if you don't know why that is important and why you don't need to "trust me" to accept it as stated. The only way you can do better is to get another binding statement from Sun's legal representative, which is usually a long and painful process and no more effective than just letting the OGB act and then wait until Sun actually objects to some action of the OGB. What Sun does is far more important than what Sun agreed to do. ....Roy
