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. >
While it might not be the intent, I read multiple responses on this thread to be attacking Derek and implying that he has done something wrong. He has done nothing wrong. My team took changes to the front page from the Advocacy Community Group as we took them from the old Marketing Community Group (now part of Advocacy) at the second anniversary. We continually make changes to the front page to make people aware of related conferences, contests, the Starter Kit, etc. and update the lefthand nav bar and set of icons in an attempt to make improvements and respond to requests from the community. All without anyone's approval. Who are you now saying is responsible for content on the front page? And who must approve changes to that content? If some entity or set of entities must approve such changes, I need specifics about the process. And those specifics need to include a definition of the threshold for change. Is approval only required to change the graphic? Or also the text? What about adding a box on the upper righthand side? Or an icon to the top bar? Or an entry to the lefthand navbar? Or is approval only required when someone wants to promote a distribution? I'm not sure ownership of the content on the front page is the problem here. The problem is the disagreement about naming a distribution OpenSolaris. When resolution is reached about that issue, we'll be happy to change the front page as needed to reflect that resolution. Thanks. Bonnie
