Garrett D'Amore wrote: > John Beck wrote: >> Stephen> The OpenSolaris Governing Board (OGB) observed with dismay ... >> >> Premature IMO. Let's discuss this tomorrow and hear from the principals >> first before debating any resolutions. > > Speaking as a bystander, (I'm not an OGB member) and not even as a Sun > employee (but I am one): > > What does Stephen hope to accomplish by publishing a statement such as > the draft he posted here? I can see that some people want to > immediately assume some kind of conspiracy, but I strongly suspect > that simple human error and incorrect assumptions are at fault of the > failure to follow procedure here. Yes, it *shouldn't* have happened. > But it did, and both an apology was given and corrective action to > restore the page to its original form was taken. I believe the fact > that *both* of those occurred demonstrates (to my personal > satisfaction at least) that the error was not intentional, and is > unlikely to be repeated. > > IMO, issuing a statement like the one Stephen proposes will only serve > to further increase tension between certain parties, and provide > fodder for Slashdot and the Linux crowd to hurt the entire community > with. I don't think it puts our community in the best possible light > to throw a spot light on this particular incident, which outsiders > will use as evidence of more discord than actually (IMO) exists. > > Furthermore, if in fact the action of Sun in this matter was willful > rather than accidental, then I fail to see how a strong statement from > the OGB will do anything to prevent future occurrence; especially > given the previous significant debate on similar matters that has > occurred. > > IMO, the OGB's hand in all matters, including this one, should be as > light as possible, using only enough strength to resolve any disputes > that can't be resolved through other means. It should not, IMO, be > the enforcement arm of any individual or group's political will. > > Let's not distract folks from the important engineering work that > still needs to be done, please. > Disagree on many accounts. I know for a fact it wasn't an "error", and that numerous people within Sun objected to it and raised concerns that were all summarily ignored. While I appreciate Vincent's apology, he apologised for the wrong thing. What he should have apologised for was Sun's blatant disregard for the process we setup.
Do I believe it was unintentional? Not for a second. Do I believe it will happen again? Absolutely. We've used a light touch in both prior cases... and what has it resulted in? This... a third time Sun has ignored its "community". No, it doesn't put our community in the best possible light, but it does reflect the reality of this community... and it's my hope that Sun sees how ugly it looks under the harsh flourescent lights of reality and maybe learns something. They're certainly not going to learn anything if we continually condone their actions. I would hope that anyone doing important engineering work wouldn't be involved in this mess. cheers, steve -- stephen lau | stevel at opensolaris.org | www.whacked.net
