On Wed, Feb 13, 2008 at 11:42 PM, Alan Coopersmith <Alan.Coopersmith at sun.com> wrote: > While we may be spineless, I think you and some other people > misunderstood what the OGB has done - all we agreed to was > passing on Sun's final statement to the community members. > How we respond on the community's behalf and what happens next > is still to be determined - we could issue a statement in > response, put the issue up for vote on the March ballot, > decide to accept it and move on, or take some other action > that someone comes up with. As the constitution requires, > the OGB made no binding decisions in private, and you now have > the opportunity to give us feedback to shape our response.
Frankly, I have not seen any indication on any public lists that the OGB intends to solidify a response. If the OGB intends to operate transparently, then it'd be nice to see the OGB members start to discuss *openly* what the response should be. So far, I haven't seen anything other than expressed displeasure from a handful of OGB members. In fact, based on my rough count, I've seen more OGB members seem resigned to accepting the move as-is than OGB members who have voiced any type of disapproval. While it might feel good, complaining isn't governance. =) -- justin
