On Thu, Dec 13, 2007 at 10:15:48AM +0000, Alan Burlison wrote: > I'm sorry, but it is unacceptable that the proposal has been changed > without consulting the group/person who drafted it, and then approved by > the OGB.
The only significant change we approved was already discussed on-list. Apparently a majority of board members didn't believe you addressed the concerns to our satisfaction, or that addressing those concerns was impossible without changes. The official minutes will reflect the changes and the votes taken to approve them. > If the OGB wants changes, it needs to reject the proposal, providing the > reasoning for doing so, and a list of proposed amendments. Otherwise it > is effectively imposing terms on the proposed CG that the CG has had no > opportunity to discuss. At one point, a board member noted that he'd "feel better if Alan were here." I agree with whomever made this comment. Meetings are public and open to all, and an agenda including this item was published in advance. I understand that the meeting time is not ideal given your location; if you had asked us to schedule a special hearing so that you could attend, I suppose we would have agreed. And if any board member had believed that a separate opportunity for additional comment would have changed the outcome, he could have moved to postpone; no one did, and the official minutes will reflect that as well. While I can't speak for the other members who voted for the amendment, I can tell you that I will never vote to delegate editorial control - as distinguished from layout, navigation, style, and backend management - of shared content to any CG. I made clear my objections to that on-list and during debate on the call. The OGB has already taken a decision to solve that problem is a different way. -- Keith M Wesolowski "Sir, we're surrounded!" FishWorks "Excellent; we can attack in any direction!"
