On 5/31/07, Al Hopper <al at logical-approach.com> wrote: > On Thu, 31 May 2007, James Carlson wrote: > > > Roy T. Fielding writes: > >> As I said, the proposal is obviously wrong. One of these days, Sun > >> marketing will stop trying to run this project from the peanut gallery, > >> but that doesn't change the fact that the proposal cannot be accepted > >> by OpenSolaris as written. > > > > On the plus side, it looks like ogb-discuss is a direct pipe to the > > pages of news.com.com. We could do worse. > > OR - we could have OGB members that think with their brains and not > with their fingers (over the keyboard) and do much, much better when > it comes to writing project proposals for highly visible OpenSolaris > initiatives.
Please cut us some slack. On the one hand, you want transparency. So, we're being transparent, and you're seeing what's going on in real time. We want to spin up a project so we can talk about product requirements rather than simply present them to you, which by definition means much of what's being proposed isn't fully formed, and you criticize the proposal for being vague. What if Glynn had posted a fully fleshed out PRD? Would you not be criticizing him for not getting community input? You can't have it both ways. -ian -- Ian Murdock 650-331-9324 http://ianmurdock.com/ "Don't look back--something might be gaining on you." --Satchel Paige
