On 02/11/2007, Keith M Wesolowski <Keith.Wesolowski at sun.com> wrote: > On Fri, Nov 02, 2007 at 02:51:44PM -0500, Shawn Walker wrote: > > > To which I would also add that if your definition of consensus is > > limited to those posting emails, it is horribly flawed to begin with. > > You and I both know there are significantly more people with voting > > rights than post on these lists. > > I fear you may be thinking I or we are claiming consensus for broader > conclusion than we actually are. Whether the end result will be that
That was indeed the case; but thankfully that has been clarified. The pitchforks and torches have been put away :) As I said before, please indicate whom has reached a decision. Since you speak for the community in some regards it is difficult to tell when you are speaking for the OGB and when you speaking for the community. > What I do believe we have rough consensus for is that Indiana should > not call itself 'OpenSolaris' or 'OpenSolaris Developer Preview' until > that more comprehensive understanding exists about the use of the name > and the structure of our community. And that for it to do so before > that time is contrary to the way we have agreed to govern ourselves. I will brook no disagreement with you in that regard. > You will notice that my proposal does not assert any particular end > state of affairs regarding reference distributions, the relationship > between Indiana and the rest of the Community, or the use of > trademarks. That was not accidental. And it explicitly states that > there is a way forward, within the OpenSolaris Community's adopted > framework, to make those choices in a participatory manner. Those who > feel as you do must be given the opportunity to make your voices heard > during that process. If you believe it is not working as intended, > please bring that to our attention as well. For that I am quite thankful; your commentaries are usually worded in a greatly appreciated manner. > I have yet to read a cogent argument to the effect that Project > Indiana *should* be allowed to identify itself as the exclusive > expression of the OpenSolaris Community's values *right now* without a > comprehensive community structure and trademark policy agreement among > ourselves and with Sun. Nor have I yet read a cogent argument to the That I will also agree; you will note that I have stated several times that the community desperately needs to define trademark usage and that it is difficult to try to enforce a policy surrounding that when one has not yet been defined. > effect that any such agreement (consensus on the broader issue) has > actually been reached and that it would permit Project Indiana to make > the claims it has made. Because I have not read any such arguments, I > believe it is fair to claim that a rough consensus has been reached. > If someone wishes to present those arguments, we're still listening. If by consensus here, you mean among the community, I would agree only with the qualifier that the rough consensus is among those that have participated on the mailing lists. -- Shawn Walker, Software and Systems Analyst http://binarycrusader.blogspot.com/ "We don't have enough parallel universes to allow all uses of all junction types--in the absence of quantum computing the combinatorics are not in our favor..." --Larry Wall
