Shawn Walker wrote:
and voting on every issue is likely to end in deadlock either due to
the apathy of eligible voters [31] or a vocal minority that prevents
consensus from being achieved.
Bearing in mind there's only ever been one vote I think it's a little
premature to say that our
Alan Burlison wrote:
Bearing in mind there's only ever been one vote
Before someone points it out, there have been two - the Community
priorities/Test vote and the OGB/Constitution vote.
--
Alan Burlison
--
___
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
Shawn Walker wrote:
This proposal is intended to provoke productive discussion,
surrounding our current governance structure, by highlighting some of
the deficiencies that currently exist. While not exhaustive, it
attempts to explain why the current governance structure is
insufficient for
On 06/11/2007, Alan Burlison [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Shawn Walker wrote:
and voting on every issue is likely to end in deadlock either due to
the apathy of eligible voters [31] or a vocal minority that prevents
consensus from being achieved.
Bearing in mind there's only ever been one
It has been well over a year that we have been a self-governing body.
The fact that the mechanisms we have are not used and that so little
progress in certain areas has been made implies to me that they do not
work.
What specific areas are you thinking of? How is progress hampered
and how
On 06/11/2007, Shawn Walker [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 06/11/2007, Alan Burlison [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
What does 'with' mean? Who gets the final say? This person would br
doing what, exactly? ('leadership and vision' is way to vague). If it
is full-time, paid by who? What about
On 06/11/2007, Patrick Finch [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Shawn Walker wrote:
The real issue behind our current troubles is not primarily technical
or logistical (as the author erroneously previously believed) in
nature; it is not about naming, trademarks, or branding; it is about
the failure
Shawn Walker wrote:
premature to say that our existing mechanisms don't work. And the
It has been well over a year that we have been a self-governing body.
The fact that the mechanisms we have are not used and that so little
progress in certain areas has been made implies to me that they
On 06/11/2007, [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
It has been well over a year that we have been a self-governing body.
The fact that the mechanisms we have are not used and that so little
progress in certain areas has been made implies to me that they do not
work.
What specific
On 06/11/2007, Alan Burlison [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Shawn Walker wrote:
premature to say that our existing mechanisms don't work. And the
It has been well over a year that we have been a self-governing body.
The fact that the mechanisms we have are not used and that so little
On 06/11/2007, John Sonnenschein [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 6-Nov-07, at 7:24 AM, Shawn Walker wrote:
On 06/11/2007, [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
It has been well over a year that we have been a self-governing
body.
The fact that the mechanisms we have are not used and that
Shawn Walker wrote:
I have not proposed a discarding of structures though. I have instead
proposed a further empowerment of them, and then an alteration to
them.
You've 'proposed' vesting an unknown amount of power in an unknown
person ('a leader') for an unknown amount of time, with unknown
On 06/11/2007, Alan Burlison [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Shawn Walker wrote:
I have not proposed a discarding of structures though. I have instead
proposed a further empowerment of them, and then an alteration to
them.
You've 'proposed' vesting an unknown amount of power in an unknown
Shawn Walker wrote:
[more stuff]
Please don't cc me on any more mail on this subject, I won't be taking
any further part, nor will I be reading the traffic on opensolaris-discuss.
Thanks,
--
Alan Burlison
--
___
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
Shawn Walker writes:
If no one disputes who owns it; then why are there disputes over its use?
I would have thought that this was obvious, but apparently it's not.
Nobody disputes that Sun is the owner of that trademark and thus has
the legal right to specify how it is to be used. That wasn't
James Carlson wrote:
Shawn Walker writes:
If no one disputes who owns it; then why are there disputes over its use?
I would have thought that this was obvious, but apparently it's not.
Nobody disputes that Sun is the owner of that trademark and thus has
the legal right to specify how it is
On 06/11/2007, James Carlson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Shawn Walker writes:
If no one disputes who owns it; then why are there disputes over its use?
I would have thought that this was obvious, but apparently it's not.
I'm actually aware of these concerns, it's just I don't understand why
Shawn Walker wrote:
Time and time again it has been said that the OGB can only act as an
arbiter of sorts; it is my belief that they must be empowered to
actually *guide* the community.
I strongly agree on this point. When I first went up for election, I thought the
board was going to be
Shawn Walker writes:
#3 I don't agree with at all. As the trademark holder, Sun should get
to decide whether or not a core distribution exists.
They can certainly do that. If they do so without taking into account
the wishes of the community, they can do that too, though the results
may be
On 06/11/2007, James Carlson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Shawn Walker writes:
#3 I don't agree with at all. As the trademark holder, Sun should get
to decide whether or not a core distribution exists.
They can certainly do that. If they do so without taking into account
the wishes of the
This proposal is intended to provoke productive discussion,
surrounding our current governance structure, by highlighting some of
the deficiencies that currently exist. While not exhaustive, it
attempts to explain why the current governance structure is
insufficient for the success and growth of
Shawn.
You seem to be of the opinion that a strong leader is necessary to the
success of a project.
Might I point out that the governance structure of FreeBSD (the most
successful of the BSD's, and arguably the second most successful open-
source operating system project in the world ) is
On 05/11/2007, John Sonnenschein [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Shawn.
You seem to be of the opinion that a strong leader is necessary to the
success of a project.
Might I point out that the governance structure of FreeBSD (the most
successful of the BSD's, and arguably the second most successful
23 matches
Mail list logo
