John Plocher wrote: > Alan Coopersmith wrote: > >> Alan Burlison wrote: >> >>> I can't and don't speak for the other Website Project members, but >>> personally I feel the OGB has disregarded both due process and common >>> courtesy by heavily amending the proposal without giving the affected >>> Project a chance to participate in the process. >>> >> The OGB meeting was publicly announced and open to any members who wanted >> to participate - that Steve was the only one of your proposed contributors >> who did so was your choice. >> > > There seems to be a misunderstanding of how Community Groups are formed. > > The constitution says > > >> ARTICLE VII. Community Groups >> >> 7.1. Purpose. In order to ... the OpenSolaris Community is held >> to be composed of Community Groups that are initiated by >> the OGB ... >> >> 7.4. Initiation. ... each Community Group is initiated by an act >> of the OGB. Prior to such initiation, the Community Group >> must be nominated by at least three (3) Members ... >> >> 7.8. Core Contributors. The initial Core Contributors of a >> Community Group shall be determined by the OGB when the >> Community Group is initiated; ... >> > > While the OGB was (IMO) discourteous and arbitrary in its handling of this > proposal, it *was* following the rules laid down in the constitution - the > OGB gets to initiate the CG, decideon its charter, and select the initial > membership based on the suggestions offered in the nomination. > > We may not like it, but they can do it this way. > > -John > Letter versus spirit (of the law). I know people will disagree with me here, but just because we *can* do something, doesn't mean we should. While the OGB has the right to be a giant dick about things (which we have), doesn't mean we shouldn't have the common courtesy to talk to the original proposers first.
cheers, steve -- stephen lau | stevel at opensolaris.org | www.whacked.net
