Eric Boutilier wrote: > Anyway, it's only just a concern at this point (re: "their acid > test"). I personally think things are still fine because, as I > mentioned in my first post, the large majority of membership (my > and some others' desires notwithstanding) has tacitly expressed > a desire to not hold a vote on the naming issue yet.
You have absolutely zero evidence to support that assertion, yet you keep on making it. In fact there is significant evidence to the contrary. You've exactly illustrated my earlier point: > The whole point of any voting mechanism is to gauge the opinion of > the electorate. Without that you get into the farcical position we > see so often in the OpenSolaris 'community', where multiple small > subsets of the 'community' all simultaneously claim to speak for the > majority, with no evidence to support their claim. Personally I don't know what the opinion of the community is on this issue, mainly because the vast majority of the voting members choose to keep quiet. All I see is a small number of voluble individuals stating and restating their opinions and claiming that they are the 'voice of the majority'. A vote is how we gauge the collective opinion of the community, not statements from one individual or another. I find the continuing attempts to avoid addressing this fundamental issue of community governance extremely perturbing. One might be forced to draw the conclusion that it's a deliberate tactic. -- Alan Burlison -- _______________________________________________ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
