Bonnie Corwin wrote: > 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. >
Fully agree. Nobody should be (and I hope nobody is) holding the website team responsible. cheers, steve -- stephen lau | stevel at opensolaris.org | www.whacked.net
