Alan Burlison wrote: > Eric Boutilier wrote: > >> Anyway, it's only just a concern at this point (re: "their acid >> test"). I personally think things are still fine because, as I >> mentioned in my first post, the large majority of membership (my >> and some others' desires notwithstanding) has tacitly expressed >> a desire to not hold a vote on the naming issue yet. > > You have absolutely zero evidence to support that assertion, yet you > keep on making it. In fact there is significant evidence to the contrary. > > You've exactly illustrated my earlier point: > >> The whole point of any voting mechanism is to gauge the opinion of >> the electorate. Without that you get into the farcical position we >> see so often in the OpenSolaris 'community', where multiple small >> subsets of the 'community' all simultaneously claim to speak for the >> majority, with no evidence to support their claim. > > Personally I don't know what the opinion of the community is on this > issue, mainly because the vast majority of the voting members choose to > keep quiet. All I see is a small number of voluble individuals stating > and restating their opinions and claiming that they are the 'voice of > the majority'. A vote is how we gauge the collective opinion of the > community, not statements from one individual or another. > > ... >
Passing on opportunity (to indicate a vote was necessary), is another way of saying what I'm trying to say. This post explains it better than I do though: http://mail.opensolaris.org/pipermail/advocacy-discuss/2007-October/001157.html I should have also mentioned that the other reason I say things are still fine is I now believe (see earlier in this thread) that the name announcement is a tentative decision pending the outcome of the "Plocher trademark policy initiative". Eric _______________________________________________ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
