Keith M Wesolowski wrote: > On Fri, Nov 02, 2007 at 11:05:14AM -0700, Derek Cicero wrote: > >> As I mentioned on website-discuss I'll make whatever changes are agreed >> upon by the various projects involved (Indiana, Advocacy) along with any >> (possible) OGB involvement. While I realize this is a controversial >> issue and understand that 'rolling things back' might damper some the >> frustration, I don't want to provide alternate designs until there is >> clear agreement from all invested parties on the proposed changes. > > The problem with this position is that those parties do not have > authority over the content in question. The Website Group is > responsible for layout, the application, and other infrastructure, not > for content. The other Groups and certainly Project Teams all have > their own pages which they control, but they do not have any authority > to decide what goes in the "common areas" that we all share. Surely > anyone can see that such a regime would rapidly degenerate into a > constant war in which every team submits its own content and expects > it to replace whatever was there before. > > The right thing to do is roll back the content to the state it was in > for most of the past 2 years. I had hoped that reaching consensus > here about the underlying issue would make that clear, but for reasons > I don't completely understand that hasn't percolated through yet. > Maybe that's out of a desire for some sort of consistency or meeting a > perceived obligation, maybe it's because of internal-to-Sun managerial > pressure, maybe it's just because enough time hasn't passed yet. So > I'm saying it outright: the right thing to do is to unwind this > change. I'm perfectly content to see something in the announcements > list about the project team making some bits available. Larger-scale > changes, no. > > If you believe the OGB needs to include something to that effect in > our official position for you to be comfortable doing that, please let > us know.
My understanding is that the Advocacy group exists to help create and manage the content of the site, including the home page (which is how the previous 'open(2)' graphic and came into being). That may be an incorrect understanding, however, which gets to my next point: If I roll back the change I'll (most likely) get an email from someone within Sun telling me to put it back the way it was the night of Oct 31st. I would welcome some clarification on precisely who owns the content and how that change process should work, but I want to avoid being the proxy fight for what I believe is actually a much larger governance issue. To put it another way, I'd rather not touch anything until we get some kind consensus between Sun and the community, which I do not see at present. Derek -- Derek Cicero Program Manager Solaris Kernel Group, Software Division
