Shawn Walker wrote:
> I have not proposed a discarding of structures though. I have instead
> proposed a further empowerment of them, and then an alteration to
> them.
You've 'proposed' vesting an unknown amount of power in an unknown
person ('a leader') for an unknown amount of time, with unknown
responsibilities, an unknown reporting hierarchy and funded by an
unknown body. That not helpful.
> It does not to me; nor is my proposal intended to definitely define
> every single detail. As I mentioned before, the purpose of the
> proposal is to "provoke productive discussion."
A worryingly small of the discussion on these lists is what I would term
'productive' Your 'proposal' with all due respect just adds to the heat
and not to the light - it largely rehashes old arguments, it is not
concrete enough to form any sort of proposal, and it avoids addressing
the immediate issues.
> Just as a prosecutor in a criminal case does not have to always use
> all the evidence available to him to prove the guilt of a defendant,
> neither do I have to use all the evidence available to me to prove the
> need for clear leadership.
What on earth are you on about? We aren't in a court of law, and you
aren't a prosecutor. If there *is* to be a discussion, it needs to be on
the basis of *all* the available evidence, not just the subset which
*you* think is appropriate.
> I did mention Apache; I merely chose not to use their governance model
> for comparison because I do not have an adequate understanding of it.
> I chose governance models that were clear to me and that I felt I
> could look at in an unbiased manner.
Then perhaps you should have familiarised yourself with it before
posting your proposal. And you certainly seem to have an unique
definition of the word 'unbiased'.
> I have never claimed that it wasn't a valid model; I just gave my
> personal opinion of it. Having an opinion on something and feeling
> qualified to use it as a basis for a proposal are two entirely
> different things.
You've just told us you don't have (I quote) 'adequate understanding of
it', yet you feel qualified to discard it on the basis of (I quote)
'personal opinion'. Boggle.
> If it is clear that Sun is the holder of the trademark, and holds all
> rights to it, why are there arguments over how they can allow it to be
> used ?
It appears haven't been following the discussion. Once again:
Nobody disputes that Sun owns the OpenSolaris trademark. What has been
requested is that guidelines be drawn up governing its use.
> Even if I read it in context, it doesn't change the meaning for me. I
> also fail to see the relevancy of making a distinction between
> "restricted to" and "such as" here. Whether it is an example or a
> definitive list is immaterial for the purpose of the proposal.
>
> Since it is an example listed in the constitution, one would assume,
> logically, that it is something that should have been delegated. I,
> personally, do not believe that it has been adequately defined or
> delegated.
Sigh. Really, you want to come off the top of the semantic molehill
that you've built for yourself. it really won't support your argument.
[ Rest snipped, I really can't be bothered repeating myself again ].
--
Alan Burlison
--
_______________________________________________
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
[email protected]
