On Dec 11, 2007 7:04 PM, Roy T. Fielding <fielding at gbiv.com> wrote: > 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.
Hyperbole will get us nowhere. > >> 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. While I tend to despite too much bureaucracy, if it's going to be used to rule over me with an iron fist; I expect it to be clearly defined in official documents. Random mailing list messages, suppositions, etc. do not a clear definition make. > >> 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. As I indicated; it is a matter of perception. We will have to agree to disagree on this point. > >> 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 That is a matter of interpretation. I interpreted the decision by Sun to name Indiana OpenSolaris as one being well within their rights as a trademark holder according to the charter and law. However, I also clearly indicated multiple times in public that I would have liked to have seen a public vote regarding it. > 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. I do not believe it to be 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. I disagree. I do not believe the matter is resolved and I believe that the future events will prove that it is not resolved. I believe that the community will continue their dysfunctional, unfair, and unwarranted criticism of Sun's legitimate business interests that the charter clearly gives them control over. I think the community has been unfair and has taken, taken, taken while giving very little back. > 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. I did notice; or did you notice that I was one of the people that ran for the OGB election last year? > You aren't asking that these issues be resolved -- what you are > claiming is that the OGB has no power to resolve them. Basically, On the contrary; I was making a hypothetical supposition that the OGB may not have power over certain areas that other have claimed otherwise. > 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. Even when you have multiple people in the same meeting or discussion, it can become a game of telephone where everyone has a different interpretation of the conclusions. What I mean by that is that your conclusions do not match my expectations nor do they seem reasonable in some ways. > >> 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. I was responding to your criticism or implication that I had somehow not earned contributor status which I found unfair. > 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. On the contrary, am I not the same person who posted a proposal to provoke discussion and to *further* empower the OGB mere weeks ago? Tell me, if my intent is to make it harder for the OGB to resolve issues, why would put forth a proposal that asks to further empower the OGB? I will not claim to be a learned man. Rather, I am merely a member of this community expressing what I perceive to be legitimate concerns in the manner that I best know how to do so. If that is "casting FUD"; then so be it. > 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 Many US judges know how to interpret US law. However, that doesn't stop each judge from interpreting it differently despite their reliance on the interpretations of others. Likewise, interpretations of agreements not written down "aren't worth the paper they're written on." > What Sun does is far more important than what Sun agreed to do. That is about the only thing I can agree on. -- 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
