On Thu, Feb 14, 2008 at 3:38 PM, Shawn Walker <swalker at opensolaris.org> wrote: > On Thu, Feb 14, 2008 at 1:25 PM, Al Hopper <al at logical-approach.com> wrote: > > On Thu, 14 Feb 2008, Shawn Walker wrote: > > > > The pilot program, which was not public to us, is not recorded > > > anywhere, and doesn't apply as far as I'm concerned. > > > > Thats because the Pilot (program) was done under NDA. Of course it > > "applies" - because it formed the basis of what is now OpenSolaris (as > > in, the Project). > > Only the public results of it apply; is my point. > > In the end, I hear people complaining about decisions not made in > public all the time. > > Well, I have the same complaint too. > > Every time I bring up a point based on public information, I get told > "we decided in some private forum differently." > > As a result, I don't really care what happened in the pilot. The only > thing I have to go on is what is public today. > > > > > If those promises were really made, then why is there no written > > > record of them given how important they seem to be? > > > > Because it was done under NDA. Because the CAB meet privately with a > > > Yes, I know that. But it still doesn't change the fact that I would > expect, regardless of NDA, certain things to be a matter of public > record due to their importance if they were so agreed upon. > > > > > This sounds more like a game of telephone than it does formal agreement. > > > > Again - this is very rude and obnoxious. And yet you keep persisting > > that it did'nt happen etc. You're beginning to sound like one of > > those conspiracy theorists that say that the moon landing never > > happened.... > > If it isn't a matter of public record and no one can say what > happened, then how do I know what really happened? > > I'm not saying anybody is lying, but like a game of telephone, the > original meaning by the time it gets to people like me has probably > been lost. > > There is no way for me to verify what was agreed to or not, and I > think it utterly silly that no formal document exists for things that > seem so important. > > Not only that, obviously not everyone agrees that what some people say > was agreed upon was agreed! > > What else am I to think?
Strange that *ALL* of the participants in the original conversation that are now speaking up have matching stories. They are speaking up now and there is no "drift" in the message. You just don't like the fact that Sun made promises that don't match your goals. The fact of the matter is you and I weren't there, so we have to take the word of the folks that were. Implying that they are liars, or have faulty memory just because you disagree with what they have to say isn't the way to win an argument. >From what I can tell, you disagree with the founding principles of the OpenSolaris community, and because you want something that Sun also happens to want, you view the ends justifying the means, and you don't try and understand the other peoples cares, needs or feelings. This community was built around that set of principles, and by ignoring them we basically abdicate the future of the project. Remember something, there are many of us who stood by and defended Sun in the dark days. Now, to have Sun prove the naysayers right is a painful betrayal. -Brian > -- > Shawn Walker, Software and Systems Analyst > http://binarycrusader.blogspot.com/ > > "To err is human -- and to blame it on a computer is even more so." - > Robert Orben > _______________________________________________ > > > ogb-discuss mailing list > ogb-discuss at opensolaris.org > http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/ogb-discuss > -- - Brian Gupta http://opensolaris.org/os/project/nycosug/ http://www.genunix.org/wiki/index.php/OpenSolaris_New_User_FAQ
