Simon Phipps writes:
>
> 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.
What witch hunt? I didn't know I was involved in any.
> 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.
No ... I don't really care one way or the other about marketing's role
here. I think you might possibly have me confused with someone else.
(I don't know who, though, because I haven't seen or heard any OGB
member explicitly discriminating against anyone in marketing. I _do_
think that several people misunderstood one of Keith's proposed
amendments and chose to view it as discriminatory, but the meeting
minutes make it clear that what happened was rather not so, and the
proposal was withdrawn anyway.)
> 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.
The proposed mechanism is to have those people do that work _anywhere_
they see fit to do it. When they've got something they want to
publish, and if it has any non-trivial content, then follow the
committee's review process.
By design, it should be painless. Things that couldn't possibly be
controversial ("we misspelled this word") shouldn't need any special
review. Things that are less obvious should have review.
In any event, the mechanics of that process are something that we
intentionally did not specify. I'd suggest working with the committee
members to get those things worked out to your satisfaction.
If you're actually saying that the people who design web sites can't
do their jobs at all unless they're editing the live site all the
time, then I'm a bit baffled (no sandbox? no testing?), but that'd be
something to take up with the committee and, if unresolved, please do
rub the OGB member's noses in our mistake. Whatever that error might
be, I don't quite see it.
> 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.
Not at all.
I've said multiple times that I expect some community group (or
perhaps several of them) to create the content. The only thing I
expect out of the committee is _review_.
You seem to be conflating these two things, and I don't understand
why.
> > 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.
That's correct. I don't see a problem with that, so we must be just
talking past each other.
Perhaps we're arguing because we're just very close in approach.
Would it make sense to reconstitute Alan's proposal, but make it clear
that what's being produced is material that can be reviewed for use on
the site, and not direct editing of the site contents?
--
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
