Simon Phipps wrote: > On Dec 20, 2007, at 19:06, James Carlson wrote: > >> That's not at all what I suggested. Instead, if you look back at the >> message I was responding to, Simon Phipps was supposing that we would >> have opensolaris.org editorial changes that come from no community >> group at all: > > You're misunderstanding me, and I'll assume for now that it's not > wilful, although it seems increasingly likely to me that there's a > continuation of an earlier witch-hunt in progress here. > > I sense a belief here that I am trying to "carve out control for Sun" > here. I am not. My concern is that a bias against "marketing" by some > members of the OGB is leading to unwise, skewed and discriminatory > decisions that are not in the best interest of the community.
I agree. I feel like we have now reached the point where we are trying to solve imaginary problems. As the person that has made 98% of the actual the changes to the site since inception, it seems like we are adding way too much process as the result of *one* case. I propose we go with my original suggestion, which is that there is a project/community call-out section on the home page (similar to how Indiana was featured) and it rotates a few times a year. Projects and and communities send their proposed content to the website-content list, we mock something up and send it out for X days of feedback. If the change is controversial then someone can take it to the appeals board, but let's start with a simple, straightforward solution based on how we've been operating - with an extra check - before turning this into the Dept of Homepage Security. Derek > > I am saying that at present there are many elements in the web site - > news & blog feeds, graphics, style sheets, just for example - and > that as far as I can see the new, OGB-created structure of Website CG > and review committee has no place in which they can be created or > managed by people with content expertise. Similarly, although there > is a committee to review the work of editors, there is no place for > editors to do their work of arranging and adjusting content for the > greatest value. > > Hence I assert that there no community group to manage this content > and contribution. Hence I assert it is non-CG originated. I assume > the OGB is implying that all this stuff is of no consequence, or so > easy any community member can be expected to create it from nothing > without recognition. I suggest that view is incorrect, and there is a > great big hole in your plans. When you hacked Alan B's proposal, you > left a part on the floor. > >> Until it's been proven otherwise, I'm going to assume that the people >> chosen for the committee are reasonable people who can make some >> reasonable choices. > > > Except Rich has explicitly stated he does not expect the OGB > committee to do anything other than audit the work of others. He does > not envisage them editing HTML, it seems, or designing style sheets, > or devising colour schemes, or selecting articles for display, or > indeed editing them to maintain quality standards. > > S. > _______________________________________________ > ogb-discuss mailing list > ogb-discuss at opensolaris.org > http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/ogb-discuss > -- Derek Cicero Program Manager Solaris Kernel Group, Software Division
