On Apr 12, 2007, at 10:16 AM, Keith M Wesolowski wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 12, 2007 at 09:57:03AM -0700, Roy T. Fielding wrote:
>
>> If you don't approve the list of people who successfully voted
>> you into office, then the current OGB is nullified and we are
>> back to step 1 -- no constitution, no OGB, and no energy left.
>
> Where exactly does it say this? The text reads, in full:
>
> # 4.2. Admission of Members. The initial set of Members for the
> # OpenSolaris Community shall be those natural persons designated by
> # the existing OpenSolaris projects as Core Contributors to their
> # projects. The initial set is intended to be a representative sample
> # of the Community's existing core contributors and need not include
> # every person that might fit that level of involvement. The initial
> # set shall be admitted upon the affirmative vote of the OGB at the
======================================================
> # initial meeting of the OGB. Thereafter, persons shall be admitted as
> # Members of the OpenSolaris Community upon accepting the designation
> # of Core Contributor for one or more OpenSolaris Groups and receipt
> # by the Secretary of their willingness to accept the status of
> # Member.
>
> Nowhere does it say that our rejection of the membership list (in
> whole or part) has any consequences like those you describe.
What are the essential elements of a contract? That both sides receive
value and that both sides agree to the terms. The phrase above
is a simple formality that acknowledges the bootstrap is valid by
virtue of the OGB agreeing to all terms. It completes the process.
If you reject that the bootstrap is valid, then it should be obvious
that you reject how you were elected. Note that it does not say that
the initial list will be modified by vote of the OGB -- only that it
will be admitted as the initial list defined by the approved
constitution.
> Please
> spare us your threats. You seem to be able to read all the nanoscopic
> print in the Constitution that's too small for our mortal eyes to see,
> so you should have stood for election yourself. Since you didn't, our
> obligation to the community is to read what's actually there and act
> accordingly.
Maybe you should stop being an arrogant prick about your interpretations
of the constitution and simply ask what it means. I am still on this
list because I care enough to answer your questions, not because
I have time for it. It has only been two weeks -- getting elected
does not mean we did a mind transfer and you suddenly know everything
there is to know about running a board. It will take some time to
get up to steam.
....Roy
