* James Carlson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2007-12-18 21:15]: > > Personally the thing that disappoints me about the OGB's > > decision is we had some important positive inertia underway, > > populated by a group of people possessing a good mix of vantage > > points and proven integrity and track records: Jim Grisanzio, > > Alan Burlison, Patrick Finch, Barbara Lundquist, Stephen Hahn, > > Stephen Lau, and Sara Dornsife. > > So where were these people when this proposal was being discussed?
Reading this alias, although I can't account for my whereabouts beyond that... > Is it just a matter of crossed wires, or did the OGB discussion of the > proposal not matter to them? I guess I'm a bit surprised that the proposal wasn't sent back (because of its apparently strong overlap with the Editorial Committee), rather than approved in a modified form. I can see why Board members decided this proposal wasn't what they wanted, but I think there's a need for some boundary setting--under what conditions, in a request for CG, do we expect that that the original CCs should accept a modified proposal? (I think this case is the first exploring a modification of charter as part of approval, but I could be missing some earlier cases.) I am also sympathetic to the point that, since the involvement with site content was excised completely, some of the motivation for the CG was lost. It would be helpful--since I believe the same people are involved on the change side in all cases--if the Editorial Committee were named, started functioning, and we could evaluate if that approach is going to be effective. Until those actions are complete, I might suggest deferring the Website CG discussion, and setting aside the modified charter for the moment. - Stephen -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://blogs.sun.com/sch/ _______________________________________________ tools-discuss mailing list tools-discuss@opensolaris.org
