On Dec 11, 2007 4:15 PM, Keith M Wesolowski <keith.wesolowski at sun.com> wrote: > On Tue, Dec 11, 2007 at 03:50:16PM -0600, Shawn Walker wrote: > > > "Trust us" is not an answer. > > > > I also disagree that the community has no need of it. > > You're assuming there's a discussion going on. I'm not aware of any > OGB meeting for which minutes are not already publicly available at > which editorial policy has been discussed either among the board > members or between the board and SMI. Various individuals who could > reasonably be thought to represent SMI have offered to meet with us to > clarify some of these issues, but there has been no follow-up. > > There was a more recent event in which someone from SMI wished to make > a small change to front-page content, contacted the OGB privately to > determine the correct process for doing so, and obtained "rough > consensus" permission. But that was not a high-level discussion on > policy, just a one-off application of an incompletely-implemented one. > > > Without well-defined areas of responsibility and control how does the > > community know that they even need to ask the OGB about something in > > the first place? > > You are welcome to propose a constitutional amendment clarifying > whatever you feel is unclear.
In this particular case, the clarification applies to the charter, not the constitution. However, I am uncertain as to where such rules would go. > > So feedback from a community member is of no value and is irrelevant? > > > > Gosh, I feel loved now. > > Welcome to the club. Can I pour you a drink? If I get a chance to meet you, I promise to buy the beer ;) > > Of course, I've also been conveniently excluded from knowing what > > either party's interpretation is of the charter via the vague "trust > > us" you've give me in return. > > I'm not aware that the OGB has an agreed-upon interpretation in this > area. We did vote to establish an editorial committee to review > changes to content not part of any Project or Group site, but you > already know about that. And Alan's proposal for a Website Group is Yes, I'm well aware of it. > up for discussion tomorrow. I declined to share my personal views > with you not because I think you should "just trust us" but because I Right. I was referencing Roy's implications that many of the areas of control had been defined during the charter definition process. He implied that there was a full definition that was private to OGB members and that was not publicly available. > think you would be better served by looking at what's actually > happening and using your own judgment. What has actually been happening seems to imply that there is disagreement between the community and Sun over who controls what. This proves to me that the charter and constitution has been interpreted differently by many individuals. > To my knowledge, SMI has not provided the OGB with anything that could > reasonably be considered an interpretation in this area, either. That was my point. > You're demanding that we show you something that doesn't exist. As Roy is the one that implied that there was a private definition available; not anyone else. > always in our position, it's difficult to convince people of its > nonexistence. I guess you'll find our editorial policy agreement with > SMI next to the spaceships in a Roswell hangar. This is actually what I thought was the case. I would be more inclined to believe that no clear definition exists. -- Shawn Walker, Software and Systems Analyst http://binarycrusader.blogspot.com/ "To err is human -- and to blame it on a computer is even more so." - Robert Orben
