Keith M Wesolowski wrote: > On Tue, Dec 18, 2007 at 09:31:26AM -0800, Stephen Lau wrote: > > >> No - we haven't left him the option. Keith said we (the OGB) have >> created this community group now - so we are forcing the narrower >> > > Please don't attribute an official action of the board to a single > individual. The *official minutes* say that *we* created this CG. > I didn't, I acknowledged that when I said "we (the OGB) have created ... "... I, perhaps, phrased my sentence poorly. When I said "Keith said" - I was referring to an exchange earlier in an email (and in IRC conversation) where you stated the OGB has the sole power to create the community. Apologies for my poor wording above. >> solution upon him. If we had given back the amended proposal and >> rejected the creation of the CG, *then* the submitter would have a choice. >> > > He can always ask us to restructure it, or the Core Contributors can > elect to disband the Group and start over. > Sure, but I maintain the better thing to do would have been for us to bring back the amended proposal to the submitters rather than forcing them to have to bring another motion to disband the group and start over. >> Disagree. If I'm understanding what Keith is saying, as of now, the >> > > Your position has been made very clear. So has mine. The board's is > yet a third position, which is reflected in the record. > > Agreed - I, as the dissenting opinion, will tend to be more vocal in making my position clear though to avoid any impression (though you and I are clear, there will be people who won't perceive it so clearly) that the OGB decision is reflective of all OGB member's personal opinions.
cheers, steve -- stephen lau | [EMAIL PROTECTED] | www.whacked.net _______________________________________________ website-discuss mailing list [email protected]
