Shawn Walker writes: > My point was that there was never any indication of who the consensus > was amongst. To say that there is consensus without indicating whom is > bound to create frustration.
Here's the original claim. http://mail.opensolaris.org/pipermail/ogb-discuss/2007-November/003018.html 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. [...] 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. The meaning of "reached consensus here" ("on this mailing list; among the OGB members") was patently obvious to me. Speaking of consensus among the wider community would indeed be nonsense, but that wasn't at all what was going on. > So, really, the URL list was nice, but wasn't necessary. I'm well > aware of the "consensus" of the OGB. Just be careful to qualify your > statement please. It was Keith's statement. And I don't think he was in any manner wrong. If anything, disputing it has just reduced the S/N ratio a bit more rather than clarifying anything ... something I would previously thought impossible. -- James Carlson, Solaris Networking <james.d.carlson at sun.com> Sun Microsystems / 35 Network Drive 71.232W Vox +1 781 442 2084 MS UBUR02-212 / Burlington MA 01803-2757 42.496N Fax +1 781 442 1677
