On Nov 6, 2007 11:59 AM, Anthony Juckel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Anthony Juckel wrote: > > > > > Again, as a relative outsider to the community > > (though I acknowledge > > > that the simple fact that I'm reading and posting > > here means I'm more > > > engaged with the community than someone who first > > browsed > > > opensolaris.org today), the questions that I'm left > > with from this > > > paragraph are, why are these discussions still on > > the drawing board? Why > > > haven't they happened yet? > > > > The OGB are discussing this tomorrow, as far as I > > know. > > Glad to hear it. > > > > Honestly, I understand that others are upset that > > more discussion did > > > not take place, and that some feel that _no_ > > discussion took place, but > > > for me, the question isn't why did Sun choose to > > brand Indiana as the > > > OpenSolaris Developer Preview without consulting > > the community, but more > > > why are these issues of branding so unclear between > > Sun and the > > > community after all this time? > > > > As far as I know, no formal proposal was put to the > > OGB - it's difficult > > to discuss something that hasn't been raised > > proposed. > > I think this gets back to the distinction between arbiter and leader. If it > was not the responsibility of the OGB to raise the issue of the community's > vested interest in the OpenSolaris trademark as it relates to Project > Indiana, who's responsibility was it? In my view, this is part of the > discussion that Shawn is trying to spark. > > I agree that the community needs more than just a way to arbitrate > disagreements. The community needs to have the sort of leadership (whether > by a single individual or a joint body) that actively champions the interests > of the community, and can work to avoid disagreements such as this. > > It seems to me that many are of the mind that this particular issue was > easily avoidable. So, what can we do today to attempt to avoid this sort of > issue in the future? I feel that this discussion is a good move in that > direction. I read his post, and see much talk about how to empower the > community to be more proactive than reactive.
I'll try and help you understand, why the community may seem more reactive than proactive. Sun created a community site. This community was established with a charter and a constitution. Over the 2.5 years since then the community has dramatically grown, and there is a relatively common understanding that "Sun" is a citizen of the community, not the ruler of the community (despite the legal structure currently not guaranteeing any such thing). (This feeling seem to me to be especially among the Sun rank and file engineers. These guys and gals like to say, "We may work for Sun, but we are inidividuals, and individual members of the community".) To date Sun has played by the rules that Sun helped develop and approve. Also ,Sun has played the part of "benevolent sponsor" of the community almost perfectly. In fact they have done a much better job than anyone could have predicted, considering their rocky history and reputation within the greater FLOSS community. The fact is we are on a road Sun and the community have been traveling together, without *major* incidents, or prolonged misunderstandings. Saying the recent conflict is atypical, is a vast understatement. Also, you are correct to note that there is, and was, no formal Trademark policy. Since Sun reps made clear their intentions early, that no one should or would be allowed to name a distro "OpenSolaris", (including Sun) I don't think it ever hit anyone's radar as a major issue. I don't know for sure whether this issue was easily avoidable. I do know that it would have taken some time to change the naming policy. I do know that Individual(s) representing Sun's various interests were working with the community to develop a naming policy. (I am one of these individuals). During these discussions to develop a naming policy, Indiana was pushed out as "OpenSolaris dev. prev." This was despite the fact that the naming policy being discussed was a) not complete, b) didn't yet have full provisions to allow such use, and c) hadn't been ratified by the OGB/community. Considering that we still have a number of divergent views that still need to be reconciled, this move can at best be considered premature. I dearly hope this is all the result of a misunderstanding, but fear that this may just be a sign of things to come, and an official change in policy at Sun's corporate headquarters. As it is today, Sun decision makers must be aware of the community's concern, fear and pain, but have done nothing to offer even a few words to ease them. It would be very simple to at least acknowledge the community's concerns, but it seems that the current plan is "Full speed ahead, community be damned". (Silence in this case is deafening, and causes me to wonder what Sun decision makers truly have in mind for OpenSolaris and the OpenSolaris community.) -Brian P.S. - Please consider this view as MY point of view. (I suspect I am not alone in these views, but there are 100s of other emails you can read to determine what views are out there.) P.S.S. - If I did not emphasis it enough... To date Sun has done more than I could have possibly dreamed of, in establishing this community. To me it is simply the best community out there. Sun should be given much credit for creating and nurturing this community. I hope that the approach taken recently is reconsidered, and the next 2.5 years can be as surprising as the first. > > > This message posted from opensolaris.org > _______________________________________________ > > opensolaris-discuss mailing list > opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org > -- - Brian Gupta http://opensolaris.org/os/project/nycosug/ _______________________________________________ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
