Simon Phipps writes: > > On Dec 20, 2007, at 16:51, James Carlson wrote: > > The committee chartered by the OGB is responsible for providing some > > way to review changes to the common areas of the web site. I don't > > think _anyone_ is expecting it to generate that content on its own. > > Instead, community groups will be doing that work and then asking the > > committee for review and approval when that work touches a common > > area. > > Yet it appears from the fact that neither the OGB's star chamber nor
Given that it hasn't met yet, and thus hasn't had a chance to meet in secret or any other way, it seems a bit extreme to be calling that committee a "star chamber." > the website CG's CCs have content roles that the OGB expects all CG > content to be in perfect for-publication condition from its > originators. Further, it seems to be anticipated that all non-text > elements and non-CG-originated materials will be supplied by > polymaths in other CGs. If there's non-community-originated material, then I'd question whether it belongs on opensolaris.org at all. That issue aside, I don't see how having a checkpoint in the process actually affects the issues you mention one way or the other. What makes web site production magically easier if there's no content review? > It seems there is no role anticipated for people to maintain the > design, news content, graphics and other elements and materials in > places such as the home page, nor for anyone to have a view over > editorial consistency for the home page and similar pages (about, > licensing etc). I think that's a rush to judgement. The point of the committee is to make sure that there is _some_ review, and that the review that's in place is under common authority -- the entire community, not just one group. None of that says that you can't put together some web site wizards to figure out what sorts of things you want to put there, or what designs you want to use, or what graphic elements you'll employ. It just says that you don't get exclusive access and you don't get unfettered access. > > In other words, what was taken from the website CG was the ability to > > determine (on its own) what things appear in the common areas. > > Except you collectively did more than that; you appear to have > engineered the composition of both groups to exclude certain > contributors from leadership. No such thing was done. Please point to the decision you're complaining about, because I know of no such decision. > The website CG uniquely has no mandate > to innovate or create or to recognise those who do, since that has > been reserved to the OGB, yet the OGB has not created a body to do so > either. It's neither my role nor my authority to explain the decisions to you, so I feel I've greatly overstepped my bounds here. If you have read through the decisions we've made, and the minutes of the meeting in order to understand how we arrived at those decisions, and you disagree with what we've done, then _please_ formulate a change you'd like to see. Don't just impute bad motives or poor leadership on others. Propose a change. -- James Carlson, Solaris Networking <james.d.carlson at sun.com> Sun Microsystems / 35 Network Drive 71.232W Vox +1 781 442 2084 MS UBUR02-212 / Burlington MA 01803-2757 42.496N Fax +1 781 442 1677
