> > You have a special talent of twisting words. I
> said the OGB obliged in putting the request to a
> vote. This is what irked me THE MOST. This is all
> what I said. Even an idiot knows no one has the
> power to make a group disappear. But the OGB put
> this ugly issue into a vote anyway, and there were
> IIRC some ogb member(s) voted for the dissolvement.
>
> The OpenSolaris constitution gives the OGB both the
> right & responsibility to
> create subgroups called Community Groups, and to
> dissolve them when necessary.
> We don't make the group "disappear", but we can take
> away its web pages and
> mailing lists on opensolaris.org. No OGB members
> voted to dissolve, since
> we actually never took a vote on such an action - the
> actual vote we took was
> whether or not to take no action at all - and yes,
> some members voted against
> taking no action, but did not specify what action
> they'd want the OGB to take
> - it could have been dissolving it, sending it a
> message, splitting Indiana
> out from a project under desktop into a Community
> Group of it's own, or
> something else.
>
(*plse see end of this reply)
> > So, I propose the ogb to disband the ogb board,
> will you consider to put it into a vote?
> > Of course not, b/c I am not a prominent member of
> the community.
>
> No, because you have given no reason we should have
> such a discussion. Roy
> gave a valid argument, we discussed it and decided it
> wasn't the action we
> wanted to take. Under the Constitution, we can
> disband the OGB, which results
> in invalidating the Consitution, undoing the
> community structure, and returning
> community governance to Sun's hands.
>
> > My impression that the xwindow team is boycotting
> against the Indiana Project is only personal.
> Rightly or wrongly, please respect the opinion of a
> lowly forum participant. I particularly resent the
> condescension of your tone.
> Please respect my team's right not to be slandered by
> you or publicly
> accused of not doing our jobs, especially when I
> doubt you know any of
> them but me, nor what we do. If my attitude annoys
> you, I'm sorry,
> but I've been working very hard to improve the X
> Window System on Indiana
> for months, and your mail arrived the morning after
> yet another 12+ hour day
> in the office working on it - to have all that
> dismissed as "boycotting"
> is not only untrue but insulting.
>
> --
> -Alan Coopersmith-
> alan.coopersmith at sun.com
> icrosystems, Inc. - X Window System Engineering
After burned all the bridges, I thought would never, or have a face to, set
foot on this forum again. But you pointed out a serious misstatement I made,
and I must apologize.
Having gone thru a good part of the transition/transformation process of
Solaris Express (since around nv20 or even earlier), I have utmost respect for
Sun's xwindow developers. I believe I have openly, though unintentionally and
spontaneously, mentioned my admirations several times in the past. Anyone who
has gone thru the same iterations as I did will undoubtedly agree with me.
Actually, my confidence in Sun's prowess in x-graphics goes back to the days
when I was using Sun's Sparc workstations for post-reservoir-simulation data
processings. If my words conveyed any sense of slandering or disrespect, I
didn't intend it, and I must withdraw or correct it. My regret is even more
acute, as just not too long ago, I was working with one of Sun's xwindow
developers to try to identify a bug in the current version of the Nvidia
driver. I know, from my own personal experience, how hard they work and how
much pride they take in their work.
However, at the time my statement was made, I was told that the current version
of Indiana didn't have the proper library for localization. This will make
Indiana, laughably, the only open-source distro, vis-a-vis other main stream
Linux distros, that is English-only. Also, the fonts in Indiana are as ugly as
they can be, reminding me of the Linux of the last millennium. I have learned
since then that things have improved. But, at the time my statement was made,
I was given an Indiana with a very inferior xwindow infrastructure. (Even
things have been improved, we are so close to the Indiana release date, let's
just pray that there aren't too many bugs.) We know how priorities are always
set, and I can understand there are, I am sure, higher priority items that must
receive greater attention. However, this happened at a time when its leader
was mingled in the anti-Indiana dispute. I am sure I must have confused you,
Alan, with other kgb, oops, obg, members. Shame on me to have made such an
outrageous statement that the xwindow developers are boycotting the Indiana
project. But I am human, and I am apt to make mistakes.
* The notion that the OpenSolaris Constitution ("Constitution" hereafter) gives
the ogb an unchecked power to dissolve a user group, without according a due
process or even due notice to its members to defend or respond, is so
repugnant, so contrary to our common belief, it cannot be true. And for (at
least some of) the current ogb members to interpret the Constitution to have
granted such incredible power is an abuse of the trust that we impliedly placed
in the ogb and is an insult to its drafter.
Article VII, Section 7.12 ("Termination") of the Constitution states that "A
Community Group is terminated by act of the OGB or by reduction of its named
Core Contributors to a number less than three (3)". Since the Constitution is
silent as to under what conditions the ogb can terminate a cg, this power is
only passive, i.e., it is only a nominal power and should not be exercised
actively, unless it is clearly provided that the Constitution intends to give
the ogb a power tantamount to that of a (collective) dictatorship. I don't
know if there's any ogb member, other than Glynn, who appreciated the anxiety
among the desktop community members, when one ogb member (out of the two
necessary to force the ogb for a vote) "sponsored" the proposal to dissolve the
desktop cg, to many this is the only place they gather. And the "crime"?
Having sponsored the Indiana Project! Whether someone has done something wrong
may be the issue (but I doubt it), but the ogb's action was to believe that it
has the power to decide whether it should punish the entire group, totally
ignoring the rights we have. If there is a defining moment of the current ogb,
this is it. And it stinks.
I am also raising the question as to, since ogb members are elected by "core
contributors", whether it is appropriate, in fairness to others and in
appearance, for an ogb member to nominate a core contributor. My concern is
particularly serious as the Constitution clearly provides that a core
contributor must first be an active and "sustained" contributor ("A Contributor
who is an active and sustained contributor to any Community Group and accepts
designation as such by said Group shall be termed a Core Contributor for said
Group and granted the status of Member for the OpenSolaris Community as a
whole." Art. III, Sec. 3.3, Para. 3). To someone like myself who is trained to
read fine prints of a document, I am getting a bleak picture seeing the ogb
interpreted certain portions of the Constitution in ways they themselves saw
fit, and ignored others when convenient.
We are getting so close to the official release date of Indiana, and I would
assume that everyone of us would be very busy and paranoid making sure that it
is as close to its intended shape as humanely possible. But no, some of us are
wasting time arguing, defending, and, as often, sidetracking the trademark
policy issue. I am responsible for all these.
--
This message was posted from opensolaris.org
