On 31/10/2007, Alan Burlison <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Shawn Walker wrote: > > >>> I just realized the above has lost some context, so just to be > >>> clear... When I say "push" above, I'm referring only to the > >>> naming of the today's release. I aware there's a plan in the > >>> works to have a vote on trademark policy aimed at future naming > >>> decisions. > >> What will be the point of having a vote on something that is a fait > >> accompli? > > > > How do you know it is until we vote? If we vote and it isn't approved > > but they still go forward, then you can say that. > > They've already made the naming announcement, and there has been no > announcement of a vote. How is that *not* a fait accompli?
That's a rather fatalistic view. To me, I didn't see a naming announcement. What I saw was a project going forward with an early prototype having chose a tentative name for it until the community gets their collective posteriors in gear and makes a final decision. I tend to look at it as a little fuel on the fire that was much needed. It certainly got more people involved in the discussion which is very desirable if we're going to have a result that most folks can be happy with. -- Shawn Walker, Software and Systems Analyst http://binarycrusader.blogspot.com/ "We don't have enough parallel universes to allow all uses of all junction types--in the absence of quantum computing the combinatorics are not in our favor..." --Larry Wall _______________________________________________ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
