Alan Burlison wrote:
> Could I have an official OGB response please? I can't respond to the
> issues the OGB obviously had with my proposal until the OGB makes some
> sort of formal reply.
Hopefully Glynn will have formal minutes up soon. The changes the OGB
voted on (some unanimously, others on a mixed vote) were (from memory):
1) Minor wording changes to use the language of the Constitution instead
of the language of the website:
s/Community/Community Group/g
s/Community leaders/Core Contributors/g
2) Replace "Promote the Website Project to be a Community" with something
more like "Create a Website Community to replace the Website Project",
since it's not a promotion, but a replacement with a different type of
thing.
3) Drop #2 about the OpenGrok Project, since the OGB was undecided on
whether moving to a new community or having both communities endorse
it was the better plan, given that we still need to come to a decision
on the question of multiple community ownership/endorsement of projects.
4) Drop the Content Project replacing the Website Editorial Committee, and
drop the portion of section 5 of your proposal referring to website-content
mailing list.
Nothing in what we voted on said that OpenGrok could never move, nor that the
Content Project could never replace the Website Editorial Committee, just that
we weren't adopting those at this time, and were allowing the rest of the
proposal to go forward.
There was discussion about the list of Core Contributors given the change in
scope of the community, but we decided to leave the decision to those people
as to whether they still wanted to be involved in a community that wasn't
in charge of editorial decisions, but would still be making decisions about
the website infrastructure.
--
-Alan Coopersmith- alan.coopersmith at sun.com
Sun Microsystems, Inc. - X Window System Engineering
