Ian Murdock wrote: > 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. >
Everything else aside, I agree. You're being forced into a position where whatever you do will be seen as wrong by some group or other, and that's bogus in the extreme. The proposal needs a short description, and a sponsoring community, not a onepager. -- Rich
