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 o
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 tr
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
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 w
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
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
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
open
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 unkn
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 unkno
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
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 lit
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 so little
>>> progress in certain areas has bee
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 sp
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 t
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
> > t
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
>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 c
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 be
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 fo
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
open
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 exist
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 su
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 go
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 th
24 matches
Mail list logo