michelle olson wrote:
Reading all this serially as the mail trickled in :-)
I suggest being more positive about the revert, and not attempting
to control "Sun". I thought your earlier idea of requesting web
access for some more people so incorrect changes can be reverted in
future was a better idea.
How about:
"The OGB notes that changes made to the OpenSolaris.org home page
did not comply with the agreements the OGB has made in the past with
Sun's offical liaison when, on two previous occasions, changes were
made without community consensus. We are very pleased these changes
were reverted pending review by the Website group, but we request
that the Website group take steps to ensure that a wider range of
members have write access to the home page to ensure that future
incidents (if they happen, which we hope will not be the case) are
reverted faster."
I'd be fine with that statement.
--adding website-discuss--
I'm not a voting member of OGB, but I think the statement above should
not go to osol-announce, see my rewrite below. According to the
current Constitution section 8.6, OGB should not even continue review
of this case because the Website CG already revisited the original
decision.
Ignoring the Constitution for a moment, if there is a regression in a
code gate, we don't announce it to the at-large community and this (in
my mind) is no different from a regression. Yes, we've had three, but
we've also committed hundreds and hundreds of changes since July
without escalation, the above message completely overlooks that, skews
the context, and also potentially takes us down the bad path of OGB
advising CGs and Projects on how they give write access to their code.
So, I suggest the following rewrite:
"The OGB notes that changes made to the OpenSolaris.org common pages
and navigation elements up until last week, were successfully
delivered using the agreed upon review process implemented by the
Website CG in July 2008 (see
http://www.opensolaris.org/os/project/website/content/plan/). OGB has
requested a large number of changes to the common pages of the site to
bring it up-to-date and all were executed well, without escalation, to
the delight of the community at large. We commend the Website CG for
their hard work in this obviously tricky area.
Unfortunately, last week's change to a main navigation element for the
Free CD did not comply with the agreements the OGB has made in the
past with Sun's official liaison when, on two previous occasions,
changes were made without prior community review resulting in
escalation and implementation of the review process noted above. We
are very pleased these changes were reverted pending review by the
Website group, but we request that Sun's official liaison take steps
to ensure that the process for review is carried out for all changes
to common pages except the Sun-sponsored links section in the future."
To be clear, I don't think the Website CG is at fault for anything... I
think all the reviews have gone great... thus my point that the review
process *works* and in a fair and timely manner. The reason I didn't
call out anything in my original statement to this effect is because I
don't believe this is an issue that the Website CG bears responsibility for.
The review policy establishing the Website CG and giving it review
authority over the opensolaris.org homepage was a policy established
between the OGB and Sun (via the OGB Liason). In my mind this means
when one party breaks the policy, the other party should feel free (and
may be obliged) to make a response.
I think "making requests" to Sun to follow the process is an empty
request. We've asked this before, and have no recourse if the requests
aren't met. I'd really like to see some level of oversight, and by that
I mean someone who isn't under Sun management pressure/control, and has
the freedom to rollback changes when they are implemented outside the
process.
cheers,
steve
--
stephen lau | [email protected] | www.whacked.net
_______________________________________________
website-discuss mailing list
[email protected]
