Dispassionate as I may be regarding this particular decision, I do believe it is one that may warrant further discussion, so on that note I'm going to throw my +1 in to Rich's proposal.
Regarding the earlier comment about it being the sole domain of the indiana community, As their project now through executive fiat carries the canonical "OpenSolaris" name, I do believe it is now an issue for the community at large rather than one single project contained therein. With the privilege of the name comes the responsibility to use it in accordance with the wishes of the mass that attaches their work to that name, and not a subset thereof. On Thu, Jun 19, 2008 at 2:53 PM, Rich Teer <rich.teer at rite-group.com> wrote: > On Fri, 20 Jun 2008, Glynn Foster wrote: > >> I suspect so - we've set a precedent now. 2008.11 isn't so bad, is it? > > A precedent of one is hardly amounts to an unchangeable position! > And Sun's marketing folks have changed nomenclature in the past > for less valid reasons. > > 2008.11 is better (less ambiguous) than 11/08, but why not stick > to the (ISO) standard way of representing dates? > > -- > Rich Teer, SCSA, SCNA, SCSECA > > CEO, > My Online Home Inventory > > URLs: http://www.rite-group.com/rich > http://www.linkedin.com/in/richteer > http://www.myonlinehomeinventory.com > _______________________________________________ > ogb-discuss mailing list > ogb-discuss at opensolaris.org > http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/ogb-discuss > -- PGP Public Key 0x437AF1A1 Available on hkp://pgp.mit.edu
