Ian Murdock wrote:
On 5/31/07, Al Hopper <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Thu, 31 May 2007, James Carlson wrote:
> Roy T. Fielding writes:
>> As I said, the proposal is obviously wrong. One of these days, Sun
>> marketing will stop trying to run this project from the peanut
gallery,
>> but that doesn't change the fact that the proposal cannot be accepted
>> by OpenSolaris as written.
>
> On the plus side, it looks like ogb-discuss is a direct pipe to the
> pages of news.com.com. We could do worse.
OR - we could have OGB members that think with their brains and not
with their fingers (over the keyboard) and do much, much better when
it comes to writing project proposals for highly visible OpenSolaris
initiatives.
Please cut us some slack. On the one hand, you want transparency.
So, we're being transparent, and you're seeing what's going on in
real time. We want to spin up a project so we can talk about product
requirements rather than simply present them to you, which by
definition means much of what's being proposed isn't fully formed,
and you criticize the proposal for being vague. What if Glynn had
posted a fully fleshed out PRD? Would you not be criticizing
him for not getting community input? You can't have it both ways.
Everything else aside, I agree. You're being forced into a position where
whatever you do will be seen as wrong by some group or other, and that's
bogus in the extreme.
The proposal needs a short description, and a sponsoring community, not a
onepager.
-- Rich
_______________________________________________
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
