On Wed, 30 May 2007, Keith M Wesolowski wrote:
On Wed, May 30, 2007 at 06:57:32PM -0500, Eric Boutilier wrote:
On Wed, 30 May 2007, Keith M Wesolowski wrote:
On Thu, May 31, 2007 at 10:41:52AM +1200, Glynn Foster wrote:
The process requires that this be sent to one or more community groups
for sponsorship consideration...
I don't agree. Here's how I'd put it: "The almost-but-not-quite-yet OGB
blessed project instantiation draft proposal will require
that this be sent... etc."
It was approved in the public and open April 25th meeting, the minutes
of which reflect that approval and were posted as required.
Subsequent feedback is a basis for modifying the policy; it is not a
barrier to its implementation. No one read the final document and the
minutes and said "This is not the policy we approved; a new vote is
needed." We simply cannot allow cycles of feedback, however
constructive and worthwhile, to delay indefinitely the adoption and
implementation of a policy that has already been approved in
accordance with the Constitution.
Dude, you need to lose the "Chief Justice" attitude.
OK, I'll forgo debating your interpretation of those minutes
and accept it.
Twice this month, for the creation of new projects, I posted
the following:
"Also copying OGB... FYI, we're moving ahead with with the setup of this
project under the old process. The 2-business-day discussion period has
been satisfied, it has sponsorship of the [sponsoring community] and
has been seconded."
Your and the other members' non-response contributed (really
badly, IMO) to the confusion.
Eric
_______________________________________________
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
[email protected]
