James Carlson wrote: > Stephen Lau writes: > >> 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. >> > > I think that's over the top. > > When we were at the point of discussing the overlap between the > proposed new community group and the already-approved committee, I was > swayed by Keith's argument that having a committee reporting to the > OGB for the content of the common areas was preferable to having any > one community group be in charge, because community groups don't have > control over each other. The alternative rejected was abolishing the > (still unformed) committee and granting one community group the > editorial role -- on behalf of all of OpenSolaris. > Correct. And I maintain this is the better solution. Everything the Community Groups are chartered to do are on behalf of OpenSolaris, whether it's Advocacy, Security, Packaging, etc. > That left us with either approving the proposal without the content > role, rejecting the proposal outright, or sending it back to the > author, who was not present at the open meeting. > > Given that the author can _always_ come back with a counter-proposal, > I see no lasting harm that was done by amending the original proposal > and approving that amended version. > Except now we've created a CG that is significantly different in scope from what the original proposers wanted. We left no path for working out a compromise proposal that might have satisfied both parties involved. What can the author counter-propose with? His CG is already chartered and created, only in a form that different enough that he is clearly dissatisfied with it. > I don't think we're being "a giant dick" about it. Instead, we chose > an option that allows the submitter to choose what to do: either go > ahead with the narrower solution, or strike that and come up with > something else more to his liking. We certainly have not said that > changes are somehow impossible. > No - we haven't left him the option. Keith said we (the OGB) have created this community group now - so we are forcing the narrower solution upon him. If we had given back the amended proposal and rejected the creation of the CG, *then* the submitter would have a choice. > That's really not all that different from what would happen if we sent > it back to the author, except that there's an already-approved > variation now available, should the author want it Disagree. If I'm understanding what Keith is saying, as of now, the Website Project no longer exists - and the Website CG exists instead. Not only is it approved, it's been implemented.
cheers, steve -- stephen lau | stevel at opensolaris.org | www.whacked.net
