On 06/11/2007, Alan Burlison <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 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.
I disagree. Instead, it is an acknowledgment that the intent of the
proposal is to "provoke productive discussion" implying that such a
discussion would have productive results.
One of those results is to define such things.
As far as "unknown reporting hierarchy and funded by an unknown body";
I also disagree.
The reporting hierarchy is already defined, the funding obviously all
comes from Sun currently.
The point of this proposal is to open discussion on such an idea and
to allow others to have the opportunity to help define it.
If I had attempted to define everything in explicit detail, not only
do I fear I would have lost any last shreds of my sanity; I would not
have achieved my goals.
> > 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.
Yet again I will have to disagree. The proposal points that we lack
clear leadership; that we lack well-defined areas of control and
responsibility; and that our current governance structure is
ineffective.
> > 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.
Since, as a human being, it is impossible for me to know what all
available evidence might be, it is impossible for me to fulfill that
request. As far as "subset which you think is appropriate"; that is
the basis of every research paper and proposal ever written.
You can disagree with my choices; yet you cannot fault me for limiting
my citations to those I feel are appropriate. It is the right of an
author to limit his material on what he believes is most appropriate.
I respect that you believe I should have done otherwise; but I will
have to agree to disagree.
> > 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'.
Every person does; human beings are biased by nature depending on whom
you ask :)
Again, I will have to agree to disagree.
> > 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.
I just don't see it that way.
> > 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:
I have actually.
> Nobody disputes that Sun owns the OpenSolaris trademark. What has been
> requested is that guidelines be drawn up governing its use.
If no one disputes who owns it; then why are there disputes over its use?
That is not to say that I believe that the community should not have
input in it; but that they must remember that it is not theirs to own,
support, finance, etc.
> > 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.
>
I respectfully disagree that I have built a "semantic molehill."
--
Shawn Walker, Software and Systems Analyst
http://binarycrusader.blogspot.com/
"We don't have enough parallel universes to allow all uses of all
junction types--in the absence of quantum computing the combinatorics
are not in our favor..." --Larry Wall
_______________________________________________
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
[email protected]
