Stephen Lau writes: > Letter versus spirit (of the law). > I know people will disagree with me here, but just because we *can* do > something, doesn't mean we should. > While the OGB has the right to be a giant dick about things (which we > have), doesn't mean we shouldn't have the common courtesy to talk to the > original proposers first.
I think that's over the top. When we were at the point of discussing the overlap between the proposed new community group and the already-approved committee, I was swayed by Keith's argument that having a committee reporting to the OGB for the content of the common areas was preferable to having any one community group be in charge, because community groups don't have control over each other. The alternative rejected was abolishing the (still unformed) committee and granting one community group the editorial role -- on behalf of all of OpenSolaris. That left us with either approving the proposal without the content role, rejecting the proposal outright, or sending it back to the author, who was not present at the open meeting. Given that the author can _always_ come back with a counter-proposal, I see no lasting harm that was done by amending the original proposal and approving that amended version. I don't think we're being "a giant dick" about it. Instead, we chose an option that allows the submitter to choose what to do: either go ahead with the narrower solution, or strike that and come up with something else more to his liking. We certainly have not said that changes are somehow impossible. That's really not all that different from what would happen if we sent it back to the author, except that there's an already-approved variation now available, should the author want it. -- James Carlson, Solaris Networking <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sun Microsystems / 35 Network Drive 71.232W Vox +1 781 442 2084 MS UBUR02-212 / Burlington MA 01803-2757 42.496N Fax +1 781 442 1677 _______________________________________________ tools-discuss mailing list tools-discuss@opensolaris.org
