On 06/11/2007, James Carlson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Shawn Walker writes: > > If no one disputes who owns it; then why are there disputes over its use? > > I would have thought that this was obvious, but apparently it's not.
I'm actually aware of these concerns, it's just I don't understand why they are a concern. For example, I can understand #1, and agree with #1. I can understand #2; but don't agree with it. #3 I don't agree with at all. As the trademark holder, Sun should get to decide whether or not a core distribution exists. In fact, I'd argue, without their ability to make that decision, what financial incentive do they have to support it? > Nobody disputes that Sun is the owner of that trademark and thus has > the legal right to specify how it is to be used. That wasn't -- and > still isn't -- the issue. Sorry that I gave this impression; I should have explained my position better :( However, I do think that your post will be very helpful to others. It certainly crystalises the points in a far more objective fashion than I've seen anywhere else so far. > > 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. > > That's exactly it. There's no input at all. If we (the OGB) allow > this to stand, then I believe that the community does not have control > over its own future. That's a sad development, as it means that the > already maligned OGB has even less that it can legitimately do. > > All that said, I don't see how annointing a benevolent ruler (of the > type you've requested) would necessarily address any of the problems > we've faced any better than the existing board does, or how it would > avoid the sorts of problems that clearly result from such a structure, > so, given that it sounds like a solution out looking for a problem, > I'd have to vote -1 on the proposal. (If it were an actual proposal > rather than just a talking point ...) If it were a "true proposal" though, it isn't just about having *a* leader; it's also about ensuring that: 1) folks realiase the need for clear leadership that don't have 2) that the OGB needs more authority (IMO) to address issues on behalf of the community (preventing everything from turning into a vote) 3) that the manner in which the community shares control with Sun must be well-defined 4) that current responsibilities that were indicated as being delegated in the constitution may not be sufficiently at the moment or those to whom it was delegated may not be fulfilling those roles Thanks for responding, it is appreciated. Cheers, -- 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]
