Richard Lowe wrote: > 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.
I agree. I think Team Indy should get its project and go build something. Jim -- Jim Grisanzio http://blogs.sun.com/jimgris --
