Keith M Wesolowski wrote: >> Well, I didn't write it, but I do disagree with it ;-) > > Since there was a period of several weeks during which public comment > was accepted (and incorporated!), I'm curious why you did not raise > your concerns then. There were also two public, open meetings at > which this was discussed and then approved; I don't recall hearing > your voice during either of those.
I'm not on OGB-discuss, I didn't see this being discussed anywhere else, nor did I see anything on opensolaris-announce. As it affects the entire community, it should have been publicised through the normal channels, not just approved in some meeting for which (as far as I can tell) no minutes have been published. >> And I also dispute that the OGB actually has a mandate to impose such a >> community-wide processes without the approval of entire community, i.e. >> without a community-wide vote. > > The OGB is not requiring much of anything here. Groups are free to > decide whether to approve projects on whatever bases they like. All > we're asking is that the Groups make it possible to announce their > projects in a way that's useful, meaningful, and somewhat > standardised. The OGB does not approve the project, the ideas it > embodies, or the people doing it (though it is possible that a project > could be described in a way that would contradict the Constitution; > this proposal does - needlessly - include that worrisome element). We > validate that it's correctly formed, then it gets created and > announced. And creation isn't even performed by the OGB; it's > delegated. Someday we hope it will be delegated to a robot and thus > "Just Happen" when a Core Contributor fills in a web form on behalf of > his or her Group. Perhaps input validation will be more acceptable to > you when it's performed by a program instead of humans? OGB/2007/01 tries to impose a process, the effect of which is that the only way a project may be formed is if it has the approval of a Community. As I and others have pointed out, that doesn't work on a practical level. It is also clear from the constitution that changes that affect the entire OpenSolaris community need the approval of the entire community, and that process has not been followed. In fact you went as far as to say: ---------- It was approved in the public and open April 25th meeting, the minutes of which reflect that approval and were posted as required. Subsequent feedback is a basis for modifying the policy; it is not a barrier to its implementation. No one read the final document and the minutes and said "This is not the policy we approved; a new vote is needed." We simply cannot allow cycles of feedback, however constructive and worthwhile, to delay indefinitely the adoption and implementation of a policy that has already been approved in accordance with the Constitution. In short: The policy was approved by the OGB and that approval was communicated to the community in accordance with the Constitution. It is in effect, and project teams are expected to follow it. ---------- You referred to the constitution twice in that mail without ever specifying *what* in the constitution you were referring to. However the requirement in the constitution that community-wide decisions require community-wide approval (i.e. a vote) has not been complied with. I am merely asking that the content of OGB/2007/01 be discussed and ratified/rejected by the group which has the mandate to make such decisions - the entire community, not just the OGB. > This project proposal was not correctly formed, and more importantly > it was not sent by a sponsoring Group as the Constitution requires. > Therefore we cannot act on it. If it were, Eric would probably be off > creating the new project's mailing list right now even if everyone on > the OGB thought it were most ridiculous idea they'd ever heard. It wasn't properly formed only if you accept that OGB/2007/01 is valid, and as I have already said it isn't valid as it hasn't been ratified by the entire community. Also, if/until OGB/2007/01 is approved, there is no requirement for a Project to be sponsored by a Community, so that is irrelevant as well. And as I've already said, the fact that the OGB thinks a project is the 'most ridiculous idea they'd ever heard' is completely irrelevant, and would *still* be irrelevant even *if* OGB/2007/01 had been properly ratified. The OGB is *NOT* the OpenSolaris equivalent of the ARCs. Make no mistake, I'm personally opposed to Indiana being the 'reference distribution', mainly because I think it is a divisive label that in the long run will discourage other people from setting up new distros. However I fully support the right of the Indiana team to set up a project, even if I personally think it is largely a waste of time (which I do). They will either prove me right, in which case the project will die, or they will prove me wrong, in which case everyone will benefit. It is not for either the OGB or anyone else for that matter to prejudge. -- Alan Burlison --
