On Fri, Nov 02, 2007 at 03:14:31PM -0600, Bonnie Corwin wrote: > 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.
That was definitely not my intent, and if it was interpreted that way then I offer Derek and you my apology. Derek is in the '8 bosses' position right now and I don't envy him a bit. > 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? Fair questions all. What I will assert is that it should have been obvious to the people who requested that Derek make the change that they did not have the authority to request it - for example, even if one supposed that the Advocacy Group were authorised to change the scope of the OpenSolaris Community's definition, I could not find any record of a public vote by it approving such a request. The pernicious nature of the change is not in the specifics of what was changed but in what it was changed to and how the decision to make the change was reached. It would be no less bad for this text or graphic to appear in a sidebar, box, masthead, or an entry in the FAQ center. I'm sure I could come up with answers to each of these questions, but the only one that's readily available is the last: it makes no difference whether someone is promoting a distribution. It makes all the difference in the world what they are promoting it as. A regular announcement to the effect that Project Indiana has a prototype available would not be controversial. With some agreement in place for a rotating featured article, it likely wouldn't be controversial for such an announcement to appear there as well. Unfortunately, it's difficult to express this sentiment in a policy containing the details you're looking for. The conclusion, then, would be that only the OGB can authorize changes to any of the common content. Because this would be cumbersome, it's not something I'd like us to do. Instead, I'd be curious how you, Derek, the Advocacy Group, and the Website Group would feel about forming an OGB-sponsored committee to review and approve these changes (perhaps they could even start making the changes themselves, freeing your team to do other work). The committee, containing an OGB member or 2 and a couple of other interested people - probably but not necessarily from Advocacy and/or Website - would have a free hand to approve noncontroversial changes but would be expected to alert the OGB as a whole to anything likely to trigger dissent. Such a policy would definitely have worked in this case even without any specific rules. > 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. Yes. As has been noted elsewhere, it appears that the OGB has reached consensus on what that resolution should be. I will understand if you choose to wait on formal approval of that resolution before changing the content. As it was not your or Derek's fault that the change was made in the first place, I'd suggest that the optimal resolution would be for the individuals who requested that change to request that it be reverted, and for them make that request without waiting for formal OGB action. -- Keith M Wesolowski "Sir, we're surrounded!" FishWorks "Excellent; we can attack in any direction!"
