Stephen Lau wrote:
> Glynn Foster wrote:
>> Hey,
>>
>> James Carlson wrote:
>>> Keith M Wesolowski writes:
On Thu, Apr 12, 2007 at 09:52:25PM +0200, Casper.Dik at sun.com wrote:
> To complete the bootstrap process. Voting to disapprove is voting
> to disband the newly elected O
John Plocher wrote:
> Garrett D'Amore wrote:
>> selected probably by OGB,
>
> I'm not certain we want to open that pandora's box. The
> OGB should be a decision maker of last resort, and not
> involved with day-to-day operations. I'd rather cadjole
> a good set of people to join the OS.o ARC
On Thu, 2007-04-12 at 14:47 -0700, John Plocher wrote:
> This actually may be a good thing, since in the long run (post-
> PSARC-transition...) the ARC community should IMHO explicitly be a
> derived one - the Core Contributers from all the other communities
> should be defined to be the ARC Commun
Garrett D'Amore wrote:
> I think you may be misunderstanding Bill's response.
Probably :-(
>
> I think we can form a reasonable ARC community from senior
> members/leadership who _are_ participants in OpenSolaris.
+1
> I do not believe it is sound to believe that every OpenSolaris community
John Plocher wrote:
> Bill Sommerfeld wrote:
>> ...
It is late on a Friday, and I'm following up on my own post...
I'd meant to add:
> Maybe i'm just getting annoyed at the attempt to shoehorn every
> long-term subgroup of opensolaris into a one-size-fits-all "Community".
It should go without s
John Plocher wrote:
> Bill Sommerfeld wrote:
>> On Thu, 2007-04-12 at 14:47 -0700, John Plocher wrote:
>>> This actually may be a good thing, since in the long run (post-
>>> PSARC-transition...) the ARC community should IMHO explicitly be a
>>> derived one - the Core Contributers from all the othe
John Plocher wrote:
> If a proposed change exposes or changes externally visible
> artifacts, then the developers of the other components
> that depend on it get involved, because this sort of
> change impacts the systems that OS.o part of. In the
> OpenSolaris environment, the core contributers
Bill Sommerfeld wrote:
> On Thu, 2007-04-12 at 14:47 -0700, John Plocher wrote:
>> This actually may be a good thing, since in the long run (post-
>> PSARC-transition...) the ARC community should IMHO explicitly be a
>> derived one - the Core Contributers from all the other communities
>> should be
Hey,
John Plocher wrote:
> General consensus doesn't work on large aliases (cf opensolaris-discuss),
> so, while it would be nice to get consensus from the unbounded subscribers
> to the opensolaris-ARC alias for approval of an ARC case, we really need
> the ability to have a class of participants
Hey,
John Plocher wrote:
> OK - so maybe we have
>
> J Random Public: Can browse the web fora and content, can't contribute.
>
> Contributer: Gets a OS.o account, can "observe" communities and
> projects,
> can post to fora/mail lists, can't access hg or vote
>
> Core:
Hey,
James Carlson wrote:
> Keith M Wesolowski writes:
>> On Thu, Apr 12, 2007 at 09:52:25PM +0200, Casper.Dik at sun.com wrote:
>>
>>> To complete the bootstrap process. Voting to disapprove is voting
>>> to disband the newly elected OGB.
>> No. Disbanding the OGB is covered in 6.4, not 4.2.
>>
Hey,
John Plocher wrote:
> Following up on Glynn's comment that contributer status should be
> something that is asked for and not simply granted, I note that
> *nobody* has ever asked to be either an ARC community contributer
> or a core contributer.
Because there has been no formal mechanism to
Hey,
John Plocher wrote:
> Glynn Foster wrote:
>> FWIW, I'd *strongly* advocate that any membership is pro-active.
>
> In the link I included I suggested:
>
> The use case for joining a community becomes:
> o create an account on opensolaris.org
> o go to a community's web page
>
Hey,
John Plocher wrote:
> Alan Coopersmith wrote:
>> Once the community re-organization is complete, the OGB will
>> send out a notice to each community explaining the new process.
>> Each community will have 30 days from this notice to notify the
>> OGB secretary of their nominations for communi
>On Thu, Apr 12, 2007 at 09:52:25PM +0200, Casper.Dik at sun.com wrote:
>
>> To complete the bootstrap process. Voting to disapprove is voting
>> to disband the newly elected OGB.
>
>No. Disbanding the OGB is covered in 6.4, not 4.2.
>
>Nevertheless, let's get this over with. We're calling for
>On Thu, Apr 12, 2007 at 09:48:53PM +0200, Casper.Dik at sun.com wrote:
>
>> The constitution is very clear on the poin tthat we have
>> to approve them.
>
>Then why vote? If it's automatic, it's automatic.
Because it says so in the constitution?
What other reason do you need?
Casper
>Those remaining people, who didn't participate in elections, certainly
>did not have any impact on the outcome of said elections (except perhaps
>to lower the margin by which the constitution passed... but it did pass,
>so that's good enough for me.)
Right.
>So, why not ask the remaining ind
>On Thu, Apr 12, 2007 at 10:45:55AM -0700, Roy T. Fielding wrote:
>
>> Maybe you should stop being an arrogant prick about your interpretations
>> of the constitution and simply ask what it means. I am still on this
>
>I'm not going to replay the Protestant Reformation on a governance
>mailing li
>Roy T. Fielding wrote:
>> If you reject that the bootstrap is valid, then it should be obvious
>> that you reject how you were elected. Note that it does not say that
>> the initial list will be modified by vote of the OGB -- only that it
>> will be admitted as the initial list defined by the ap
>Roy T. Fielding wrote:
>> If you don't approve the list of people who successfully voted
>> you into office, then the current OGB is nullified and we are
>> back to step 1 -- no constitution, no OGB, and no energy left.
>
>And what of all the people who were never asked if they wanted to
>be part
>Nowhere does it say that our rejection of the membership list (in
>whole or part) has any consequences like those you describe. Please
>spare us your threats. You seem to be able to read all the nanoscopic
>print in the Constitution that's too small for our mortal eyes to see,
>so you should ha
On Fri, 13 Apr 2007, Glynn Foster wrote:
> Hey,
>
> James Carlson wrote:
> > Keith M Wesolowski writes:
> >> On Thu, Apr 12, 2007 at 09:52:25PM +0200, Casper.Dik at sun.com wrote:
> >>
> >>> To complete the bootstrap process. Voting to disapprove is voting
> >>> to disband the newly elected OGB.
>On Apr 12, 2007, at 9:08 AM, Alan Coopersmith wrote:
>
>> A rough draft proposal based on thoughts raised at yesterday's
>> meeting - is this the direction we want to head?
>
>No.
>
>The whole point, and only point, of the bootstrap is to establish
>that you agree to whom you are responsible, and
Glynn Foster wrote:
> For example, would you
> really dismiss someone like Bryan just because he's not a core contributor of
> the ARC community?
Read my post again:
>> expected to mostly watch
If it were about a community or project that Bryan was a part of - of course
not.
But, when the tim
John Plocher wrote:
> Glynn Foster wrote:
>> John Plocher wrote:
>>> OK - so maybe we have
>>>
>>> J Random Public: Can browse the web fora and content, can't contribute.
>>>
>>> Contributer: Gets a OS.o account, can "observe" communities and
>>> projects,
>>> can post to fo
Glynn Foster wrote:
> John Plocher wrote:
>> OK - so maybe we have
>>
>> J Random Public: Can browse the web fora and content, can't contribute.
>>
>> Contributer: Gets a OS.o account, can "observe" communities and
>> projects,
>> can post to fora/mail lists, can't access hg
Keith M Wesolowski writes:
> On Thu, Apr 12, 2007 at 04:22:04PM -0400, James Carlson wrote:
>
> > > Move to approve the list of core contributors as described in 4.2.
> >
> > Seconded.
>
> Mr. Secretary, please record my vote as an abstention.
Record mine as approval. Let's move on.
--
James
Keith M Wesolowski writes:
> On Thu, Apr 12, 2007 at 09:52:25PM +0200, Casper.Dik at sun.com wrote:
>
> > To complete the bootstrap process. Voting to disapprove is voting
> > to disband the newly elected OGB.
>
> No. Disbanding the OGB is covered in 6.4, not 4.2.
>
> Nevertheless, let's get t
John Plocher wrote:
>
> Following up on Glynn's comment that contributer status should be
> something that is asked for and not simply granted, I note that
> *nobody* has ever asked to be either an ARC community contributer
> or a core contributer.
>
> This actually may be a good thing, since in th
John Plocher wrote:
> I'm pretty sure I sent mail while I was in India in early March
> to the arc aliases @opensolaris (which, of course, I can't find
> in the fora) describing the selection criteria I used to select
> the ARC Core contributers [effectively: psarc-members + me => core,
> interns a
Glynn Foster wrote:
> I still don't personally see the benefit of coming a Contributor vs Core
> Contributor right now - there's very little difference other than voting
> rights
Right now, no. But if we don't do something to unmuddle them, they never will
be useful - or used. And I think we ne
Glynn Foster wrote:
> Hey,
>
> James Carlson wrote:
>> Keith M Wesolowski writes:
>>> On Thu, Apr 12, 2007 at 09:52:25PM +0200, Casper.Dik at sun.com wrote:
>>>
To complete the bootstrap process. Voting to disapprove is voting
to disband the newly elected OGB.
>>> No. Disbanding the OG
Glynn Foster wrote:
> Hey,
>
> John Plocher wrote:
>> Glynn Foster wrote:
>>> FWIW, I'd *strongly* advocate that any membership is pro-active.
>> In the link I included I suggested:
>>
>> The use case for joining a community becomes:
>> o create an account on opensolaris.org
>> o g
Alan Coopersmith wrote:
> For the ARC community specifically, I was surprised both by not
> including the people who had worked to make the case histories
> open (I thought Glynn & Danek had done a lot of work there)
The work was done mostly by EricB and myself, with prompting
and advice copiousl
On Thu, 12 Apr 2007, James Carlson wrote:
> > Move to approve the list of core contributors as described in 4.2.
>
> Seconded.
+1
--
Rich Teer, SCSA, SCNA, SCSECA, OGB member
CEO,
My Online Home Inventory
Voice: +1 (250) 979-1638
URLs: http://www.rite-group.com/rich
http://www.myonline
John Plocher wrote:
> Alan Coopersmith wrote:
>> simply submitting the entire set of PSARC licensees...
>> is not acceptable.
>
> This seems arbitrary and uncalled for. Most of the PSARC
> licensees ARE involved with open projects and with closed
> projects that are transitioning to open. Having
Glynn Foster wrote:
> FWIW, I'd *strongly* advocate that any membership is pro-active.
In the link I included I suggested:
The use case for joining a community becomes:
o create an account on opensolaris.org
o go to a community's web page
o click on "become an observer".
On Thu, Apr 12, 2007 at 04:22:04PM -0400, James Carlson wrote:
> > Move to approve the list of core contributors as described in 4.2.
>
> Seconded.
Mr. Secretary, please record my vote as an abstention.
--
Keith M Wesolowski "Sir, we're surrounded!"
FishWorks
On Thu, Apr 12, 2007 at 09:52:25PM +0200, Casper.Dik at sun.com wrote:
> To complete the bootstrap process. Voting to disapprove is voting
> to disband the newly elected OGB.
No. Disbanding the OGB is covered in 6.4, not 4.2.
Nevertheless, let's get this over with. We're calling for a vote by
On Thu, Apr 12, 2007 at 09:48:53PM +0200, Casper.Dik at sun.com wrote:
> The constitution is very clear on the poin tthat we have
> to approve them.
Then why vote? If it's automatic, it's automatic.
--
Keith M Wesolowski "Sir, we're surrounded!"
FishWorks "E
I would suggest a simpler solution.
Everyone who "voted" has demonstrated at least some (minimal) community
involvement. Therefore disenfranchising them doesn't work. Their Core
Contributor status should stand as is.
Those remaining people, who didn't participate in elections, certainly
did
Alan Coopersmith wrote:
> never responded. Should we approve all those who voted and leave
> out the rest?
No, you should follow the constitution which says keep the initial group
and ADD the others as they are identified.
Grow the community, don't kill it.
Nothing here implies anything about
The initial
> # set shall be admitted upon the affirmative vote of the OGB at the
> # initial meeting of the OGB. Thereafter, persons shall be admitted as
The wording seems clear - the initial set remains ("shall be admitted upon
the affirmative vote of the OGB") and new core members are added fol
On Apr 12, 2007, at 10:56 AM, Alan Coopersmith wrote:
> Roy T. Fielding wrote:
>> If you reject that the bootstrap is valid, then it should be obvious
>> that you reject how you were elected. Note that it does not say that
>> the initial list will be modified by vote of the OGB -- only that it
>>
On Apr 12, 2007, at 11:04 AM, Keith M Wesolowski wrote:
> I'm not going to replay the Protestant Reformation on a governance
> mailing list. The Constititon is written in plain English; we don't
No, IT ISN'T WRITTEN IN PLAIN ENGLISH. The plain English version
was rejected very early on as not be
* Keith M Wesolowski [2007-04-12 11:11]:
> On Thu, Apr 12, 2007 at 09:08:20AM -0700, Alan Coopersmith wrote:
>
> > For the At-Large Community, the OGB grants, pending e-mail to the
> > OGB secretary, from each contributor indicating acceptance,
> > Core Contributor status to these groups of Contr
On Thu, Apr 12, 2007 at 09:08:20AM -0700, Alan Coopersmith wrote:
> For the At-Large Community, the OGB grants, pending e-mail to the
> OGB secretary, from each contributor indicating acceptance,
> Core Contributor status to these groups of Contributors:
> 1. The members of the CAB / 2006-7 OGB
On Thu, Apr 12, 2007 at 10:45:55AM -0700, Roy T. Fielding wrote:
> Maybe you should stop being an arrogant prick about your interpretations
> of the constitution and simply ask what it means. I am still on this
I'm not going to replay the Protestant Reformation on a governance
mailing list. The
Alan Coopersmith wrote:
> Once the community re-organization is complete, the OGB will
> send out a notice to each community explaining the new process.
> Each community will have 30 days from this notice to notify the
> OGB secretary of their nominations for community facilitator,
> ... reams of
Roy T. Fielding wrote:
> If you reject that the bootstrap is valid, then it should be obvious
> that you reject how you were elected. Note that it does not say that
> the initial list will be modified by vote of the OGB -- only that it
> will be admitted as the initial list defined by the approved
On Apr 12, 2007, at 10:16 AM, Keith M Wesolowski wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 12, 2007 at 09:57:03AM -0700, Roy T. Fielding wrote:
>
>> If you don't approve the list of people who successfully voted
>> you into office, then the current OGB is nullified and we are
>> back to step 1 -- no constitution, no O
Roy T. Fielding wrote:
> If you don't approve the list of people who successfully voted
> you into office, then the current OGB is nullified and we are
> back to step 1 -- no constitution, no OGB, and no energy left.
And what of all the people who were never asked if they wanted to
be part of the
On Thu, Apr 12, 2007 at 09:57:03AM -0700, Roy T. Fielding wrote:
> If you don't approve the list of people who successfully voted
> you into office, then the current OGB is nullified and we are
> back to step 1 -- no constitution, no OGB, and no energy left.
Where exactly does it say this? The t
On Apr 12, 2007, at 9:08 AM, Alan Coopersmith wrote:
> A rough draft proposal based on thoughts raised at yesterday's
> meeting - is this the direction we want to head?
No.
The whole point, and only point, of the bootstrap is to establish
that you agree to whom you are responsible, and exactly w
A rough draft proposal based on thoughts raised at yesterday's
meeting - is this the direction we want to head?
-alan-
The OGB thanks all of the initial Contributors identified by
the communities for the initial OGB election and ratification
of the constitution. However, due to concerns
55 matches
Mail list logo
