|
Replies:
53
-
Last Post:
Nov 3, 2007 2:42 PM
by: Stephen Lau
|
Threads:
[
Previous
|
Next
]
|
|
Ian Murdock
Ian.Murdock@Sun.COM
|
|
|
|
I'm sorry, but I just don't get it
Posted:
Nov 2, 2007 10:16 AM
|
|
All right.
I don't even know where to begin.
Does it matter at all that the feedback outside this community to
the idea that we're producing a binary distribution called
OpenSolaris has almost universally been: "Duh. What took so long?"
Does it matter that the initial feedback on the Developer Preview
has been overwhelming positive, that so many more people in the
world are talking about OpenSolaris--that the approach is WORKING?
Does it matter that we literally MOVED MOUNTAINS to get to where we
are today.. To create this community in the first place, to free the IP,
to reprioritize, to get the vast resources Sun dedicates to Solaris
focused on doing their work in the open, to evangelize within the
company the importance of continuing to open up such that those outside
of Sun can participate in future development on an equal footing?
Does it matter that we are inviting the community to participate
in a discussion about how to enable broader use of the OpenSolaris
brand, to build out a ecosystem of distributions that are compatible,
to solve the Linux fragmentation problem before it even becomes
a problem? What other company has done this? Shouldn't we be applauded
for being willing to take this step--or is this just another
case of Sun being held to a much different standard than everyone else?
And, yes, does it matter that Sun holds a large stake in this
community, PAYS the vast majority of people here for the privilege of
being able to spend their days doing what they love, gets flamed
repeatedly by many of those same people for our trouble, and in return
thinks it reasonable to have _some_ say in how the community functions?
Or is that a sign of evil intentions? Do we have to completely
abdicate to "be community"? Isn't that taxation without representation?
Or is all that insignificant, irrelevant? We haven't given everything,
so therefore we've given nothing?
I'm sorry, but I just don't get it. Not in the least bit.
-ian
--
Ian Murdock
http://ianmurdock.com/
"Don't look back--something might be gaining on you." --Satchel Paige
_______________________________________________
trademark-policy-dev mailing list
trademark-policy-dev at opensolaris dot org
http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/trademark-policy-dev
|
|
|
Posts:
1,539
From:
Cobourg Ontario Canada
Registered:
4/27/05
|
|
|
|
Re: [osol-discuss] I'm sorry,
but I just don't get it
Posted:
Nov 2, 2007 10:24 AM
in response to: Ian Murdock
|
|
> All right.
>
> I don't even know where to begin.
Welcome to the OpenSolaris Community where you can do great work, endless
hours year after year and get endless heartache for it.
Ian, to be frank, you're new here. This sort of thing has gone on for
years and while this community is intensely intelligent it is also a
very dysfunctional family. Don't expect revelation overnight and don't
expect a magic bullet approach. You can lead people into the light but
you need to be a leader. Someone that people will follow straight out
of the gates of hell.
I think we are halfway there.
Dennis Clarke
_______________________________________________
trademark-policy-dev mailing list
trademark-policy-dev at opensolaris dot org
http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/trademark-policy-dev
|
|
|
|
|
Posts:
3,835
From:
JP
Registered:
4/6/05
|
|
|
|
Re: [osol-discuss] I'm sorry,
but I just don't get it
Posted:
Nov 3, 2007 12:33 AM
in response to: dclarke
|
|
Dennis Clarke wrote:
>> All right.
>>
>> I don't even know where to begin.
>
> Welcome to the OpenSolaris Community where you can do great work, endless
> hours year after year and get endless heartache for it.
>
> Ian, to be frank, you're new here. This sort of thing has gone on for
> years and while this community is intensely intelligent it is also a
> very dysfunctional family.
I don't think it's a dysfunctional family so much as it's the early
stages of a democracy. It may be messy at times, but we have to get it a
chance to develop. We wrote a Constitution for a reason. Let's work it.
Jim
--
http://blogs.sun.com/jimgris
_______________________________________________
trademark-policy-dev mailing list
trademark-policy-dev at opensolaris dot org
http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/trademark-policy-dev
|
|
|
|
|
Posts:
566
From:
Registered:
4/19/07
|
|
|
|
Re: [osol-discuss] I'm sorry,
but I just don't get it
Posted:
Nov 2, 2007 10:26 AM
in response to: Ian Murdock
|
|
|
|
> I'm sorry, but I just don't get it. Not in the least bit.
The issue at hand is mainly that there was a discussion initiated,
including the trademark-dev list, just to have you jump into it and
simply decide out of the blue that it's "OpenSolaris" and basta (well,
"you" because you're the frontman for all people involved). A decision
which seemed to be the opposite of what was currently being discussed on
that list.
> Does it matter at all that the feedback outside this community to
> the idea that we're producing a binary distribution called
> OpenSolaris has almost universally been: "Duh. What took so long?"
I don't think that the name "OpenSolaris" is making the big difference
here. It could be called whatever else, as long it's featured and
endorsed on opensolaris.org as Indiana is right now, it would have
resulted in the same feedback. Whatever site I go, that's reporting
about it, is still referring to it as Project Indiana.
-mg
_______________________________________________
trademark-policy-dev mailing list
trademark-policy-dev at opensolaris dot org
http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/trademark-policy-dev
|
|
|
|
|
John Beck
jbeck@eng.sun.com
|
|
|
|
Re: [ogb-discuss] I'm sorry,
but I just don't get it
Posted:
Nov 2, 2007 10:27 AM
in response to: Ian Murdock
|
|
Ian> Does it matter at all that ...
Yes, all that stuff matters.
Ian> And, yes, does it matter that Sun holds a large stake in this community,
Ian> PAYS the vast majority of people here for the privilege of being able
Ian> to spend their days doing what they love, gets flamed repeatedly by
Ian> many of those same people for our trouble, and in return thinks it
Ian> reasonable to have _some_ say in how the community functions?
Yes, that matters too, but I think the disconnect is "_some_ say" vs making
a unilateral decision with no consultation or even pre-announcement. That
is not what most people here seem to think makes a community.
Ian> Or is all that insignificant, irrelevant? We haven't given everything,
Ian> so therefore we've given nothing?
No, you seem to be making this more black-and-white than I see it. Welcome
to the world of Solaris, where everyone is a critic because everyone strives
for perfection. The developer preview is fantastic; I don't think anyone is
quibbling with that. Rather, they're upset about the name, which implies
that Sun has unilaterally decided that OpenSolaris belongs to itself rather
than the community.
Ian> I'm sorry, but I just don't get it. Not in the least bit.
I hope the above helps. Welcome to our strange culture.
-- John
http://blogs.sun.com/jbeck
_______________________________________________
trademark-policy-dev mailing list
trademark-policy-dev at opensolaris dot org
http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/trademark-policy-dev
|
|
|
|
|
Posts:
528
From:
CA
Registered:
12/22/05
|
|
|
|
Re: [osol-discuss] I'm sorry,
but I just don't get it
Posted:
Nov 2, 2007 10:29 AM
in response to: Ian Murdock
|
|
On 2-Nov-07, at 10:16 AM, Ian Murdock wrote:
> All right.
>
> I don't even know where to begin.
>
> Does it matter at all that the feedback outside this community to
> the idea that we're producing a binary distribution called
> OpenSolaris has almost universally been: "Duh. What took so long?"
No.
> Does it matter that the initial feedback on the Developer Preview
> has been overwhelming positive, that so many more people in the
> world are talking about OpenSolaris--that the approach is WORKING?
No.
> Does it matter that we literally MOVED MOUNTAINS to get to where we
> are today.. To create this community in the first place, to free the
> IP,
> to reprioritize, to get the vast resources Sun dedicates to Solaris
> focused on doing their work in the open, to evangelize within the
> company the importance of continuing to open up such that those
> outside
> of Sun can participate in future development on an equal footing?
If you ( Sun ) don't listen to the community and just show us what
you're doing rather than working with us, then No. Microsoft and Apple
can (and do) do that but nobody claims Win. and OSX are "open source"
> Does it matter that we are inviting the community to participate
> in a discussion about how to enable broader use of the OpenSolaris
> brand,
You have done no such thing. You dictated the "proper" usage of the
brand.
> <blah blah aren't we great...>
>
> and in return
> thinks it reasonable to have _some_ say in how the community
> functions?
>
> Or is that a sign of evil intentions? Do we have to completely
> abdicate to "be community"? Isn't that taxation without
> representation?
>
> Or is all that insignificant, irrelevant? We haven't given everything,
> so therefore we've given nothing?
Sun absolutely ought to get some say in how the community functions
and how the brand is used. However they should not get the /only/ say.
_______________________________________________
trademark-policy-dev mailing list
trademark-policy-dev at opensolaris dot org
http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/trademark-policy-dev
|
|
|
|
|
Posts:
6,807
From:
US
Registered:
3/9/05
|
|
|
|
Re: [ogb-discuss] I'm sorry,
but I just don't get it
Posted:
Nov 2, 2007 10:31 AM
in response to: Ian Murdock
|
|
Ian Murdock writes:
> Does it matter at all that the feedback outside this community to
[...]
No. None of those things are actually under discussion here. What's
under discussion is the taking of the name "OpenSolaris" and the
branding of this particular distribution as the one and only
OpenSolaris developer distribution *without* any corresponding
community endorsement of that decision.
Yes, of course we're well aware of what the project is doing. It's
great that it's getting good reviews. The amount of work done in a
very short period of time is just fantastic. I think the project team
needs to be commended for taking a huge leap forward.
But the lack of communication in this case has been disastrous, and
the messaging used simply atrocious. That's the part that needs to be
fixed, and fixed quickly.
I have no doubt that a release like this will eventually be "the
OpenSolaris distribution." I think that'll be a good result.
However, I continue to believe that this requires *explicit* community
endorsement, and is not something that can be dictated by Sun's
management.
> Or is all that insignificant, irrelevant? We haven't given everything,
> so therefore we've given nothing?
It just misses the point.
--
James Carlson, Solaris Networking <james dot d dot carlson at sun dot com>
Sun Microsystems / 35 Network Drive 71.232W Vox +1 781 442 2084
MS UBUR02-212 / Burlington MA 01803-2757 42.496N Fax +1 781 442 1677
_______________________________________________
trademark-policy-dev mailing list
trademark-policy-dev at opensolaris dot org
http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/trademark-policy-dev
|
|
|
|
|
Posts:
1,127
From:
US
Registered:
7/2/05
|
|
|
|
Re: [osol-discuss] I'm sorry,
but I just don't get it
Posted:
Nov 2, 2007 10:36 AM
in response to: Ian Murdock
|
|
Ian,
To those people in the 'OpenSolaris Community' that do
know a thing or two - we get it. Yet, in all societies
you know that there is debate over past issues that
need to be addressed whether negative or positive in
impact.
So I'd just say, let those that have an issue or
complaint be heard at least. I only say I think some
people are not intentionally trying to be demeaning or
degrading (I **really** hope not), just that they feel
their past commens or inquiries fell on deaf ears
beforehand so now they wish to vent this issue to
those "willing" to listen and even care about those
issues.
This is the way it is in any community or society all
over the world. Freedom of speech or expression from
OpenSolaris community memebers -- but hopefully done
with some respect and humility. Not dictatorship, but
equality amongest peers and community. Is this not
what the OpenSolaris developer Summit revealed as we
sat amongest our peers and listened to frustrations
and issues at hand?!?
We do need to become more focused and document these
issues so they can be addressed and hopefully not
ignored. These issues may "pinch a few ears and step
on toes" but I'd hope both the OGB and
community/project leaders will at least take heed and
try to appreciate the input.
Do this and we may stay and stand united. Don't do
this and things may end up like falling dominoes - one
community member and user group at a time...
~ Ken Mays
All right.
I don't even know where to begin.
Does it matter at all that the feedback outside this
community to
the idea that we're producing a binary distribution
called
OpenSolaris has almost universally been: "Duh. What
took so long?"
Does it matter that the initial feedback on the
Developer Preview
has been overwhelming positive, that so many more
people in the
world are talking about OpenSolaris--that the approach
is WORKING?
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com
_______________________________________________
trademark-policy-dev mailing list
trademark-policy-dev at opensolaris dot org
http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/trademark-policy-dev
|
|
|
|
|
Posts:
191
From:
US
Registered:
6/25/05
|
|
|
|
Re: [indiana-discuss] I'm sorry,
but I just don't get it
Posted:
Nov 2, 2007 10:37 AM
in response to: Ian Murdock
|
|
On Nov 2, 2007, at 10:16, Ian Murdock wrote:
> All right.
>
> I don't even know where to begin.
hear hear! thanks for your candid insight Ian! .. i've only been at
sun for about 10 years now, but from what i've seen it's always been
a chaotic mess of consolidations replete with long pointless debates
and packaging nightmares
i'm sure i'm not the only one who *really* welcomes your efforts to
move matterhorns of crusty historic cruft that seem to have existed
for eons with solaris .. from my 100000 mile view - it seems to me
that the opensolaris/linux comparison really breaks down since linux
is really focused on the kernel, and opensolaris is really based on a
meta consolidation - you're always going to have a few vocal
advocates for how thing****ould really be branded (eg: RMS and GNU/
Linux) .. but **** the politics and keep pressing on!
---
.je
_______________________________________________
trademark-policy-dev mailing list
trademark-policy-dev at opensolaris dot org
http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/trademark-policy-dev
|
|
|
|
|
Posts:
1,539
From:
Cobourg Ontario Canada
Registered:
4/27/05
|
|
|
|
Re: [ogb-discuss] [indiana-discuss] I'm
sorry, but I just don't get it
Posted:
Nov 2, 2007 11:27 AM
in response to: jone
|
|
>
> On Nov 2, 20****at 10:16, Ian Murdock wrote:
>
>> All right.
>>
>> I don't even know where to begin.
>
> hear hear! thanks for your candid insight Ian! .. i've only been at
> sun for about 10 years now, but from what i've seen it's always been
> a chaotic mess of consolidations replete with long pointless debates
> and packaging nightmares
>
> i'm sure i'm not the only one who *really* welcomes your efforts to
> move matterhorns of crusty historic cruft that seem to have existed
> for eons with solaris .. from my 100000 mile view - it seems to me
> that the opensolaris/linux comparison really breaks down since linux
> is really focused on the kernel, and opensolaris is really based on a
> meta consolidation - you're always going to have a few vocal
> advocates for how things should really be branded (eg: RMS and GNU/
> Linux) .. but **** the politics and keep pressing on!
I am 100% behind this great work and I could not agree more.
If Dr. Salk and Dr. Sabin were to release the polio vaccine today
then I think that people would line up and take it regardless of
the name. I think that the "OpenSolaris Developer Preview" is a
serious shot in the arm for the OpenSolaris Community and it cures
some tragic flaws.
My opinion.
Dennis Clarke
http://www.blastwave.org/
ps : I have work to do in order to get software available via a
public community based software repository.
_______________________________________________
trademark-policy-dev mailing list
trademark-policy-dev at opensolaris dot org
http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/trademark-policy-dev
|
|
|
|
|
Posts:
975
From:
US
Registered:
3/9/05
|
|
|
|
Re: [ogb-discuss] I'm sorry,
but I just don't get it
Posted:
Nov 2, 2007 10:42 AM
in response to: Ian Murdock
|
|
On Fri, 2007-11-02 at 13:16 -0400, Ian Murdock wrote:
> I don't even know where to begin.
You should start with the choice of name.
Names are very important.
Pick a new one that properly communicates this release's status as an
experimental prototype produced by a subset of the community without
prior broad review, and all will be well.
To me, at least, "Preview" has a strong connotation of "almost done".
The current name is already causing confusion -- on one sun-internal
list someone seemed to think it was baked enough that it could go -- in
its current form -- on ruggedized mil-spec laptops for mission-critical
applications.
I booted it. I crashed the installer a few times, and then got it to
work.
It's a very promising start but parts of it are held together with duct
tape and bailing wire and it's not ready for prime time.
> I'm sorry, but I just don't get it. Not in the least bit.
It's all about the name. Back away from "OpenSolaris Developer Preview"
and this nightmare will end.
- Bill
_______________________________________________
trademark-policy-dev mailing list
trademark-policy-dev at opensolaris dot org
http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/trademark-policy-dev
|
|
|
|
|
Posts:
651
From:
Registered:
5/25/05
|
|
|
|
Re: [indiana-discuss] [ogb-discuss] I'm
sorry, but I just don't get it
Posted:
Nov 2, 2007 10:55 AM
in response to: sommerfe
|
|
Bill,
> It's all about the name. Back away from "OpenSolaris Developer Preview"
> and this nightmare will end.
>
And then what? I hope that doesn't sound facetious, I'm really asking
what you see as next steps.
Sara
> - Bill
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> indiana-discuss mailing list
> indiana-discuss at opensolaris dot org
> http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/indiana-discuss
>
_______________________________________________
trademark-policy-dev mailing list
trademark-policy-dev at opensolaris dot org
http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/trademark-policy-dev
|
|
|
|
|
Posts:
1,320
From:
US
Registered:
4/27/05
|
|
|
|
Re: [ogb-discuss] [indiana-discuss] I'm
sorry, but I just don't get it
Posted:
Nov 2, 2007 11:02 AM
in response to: sarad
|
|
Sara Dornsife wrote:
> Bill,
>
>
>> It's all about the name. Back away from "OpenSolaris Developer Preview"
>> and this nightmare will end.
>>
>>
>
> And then what? I hope that doesn't sound facetious, I'm really asking
> what you see as next steps.
>
Ask for community buy-in on the name usage. The problem again isn't
the end result (although I'm sure there are folks who disagree with
that), but the fact that community involvement was elided in selecting
this name, usurping the front opensolaris.org web page, etc.
Right now, it feels like Project Indiana has completely usurped the
OpenSolaris brand without any consultation from the community.
The community was founded as a *community*, not a benevolent
dictatorship. Once you come to grips with that (and this is different
for Ian, at Debian he could pretty much do whatever he wanted, IIUC),
then I think the rest will start to make sense.
-- Garrett
> Sara
>
>
>
>> - Bill
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> indiana-discuss mailing list
>> indiana-discuss at opensolaris dot org
>> http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/indiana-discuss
>>
>>
> _______________________________________________
> ogb-discuss mailing list
> ogb-discuss at opensolaris dot org
> http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/ogb-discuss
>
_______________________________________________
trademark-policy-dev mailing list
trademark-policy-dev at opensolaris dot org
http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/trademark-policy-dev
|
|
|
|
|
Posts:
6,807
From:
US
Registered:
3/9/05
|
|
|
|
Re: [ogb-discuss] [indiana-discuss] I'm
sorry, but I just don't get it
Posted:
Nov 2, 2007 11:08 AM
in response to: sarad
|
|
Sara Dornsife writes:
> Bill,
>
> > It's all about the name. Back away from "OpenSolaris Developer Preview"
> > and this nightmare will end.
> >
>
> And then what? I hope that doesn't sound facetious, I'm really asking
> what you see as next steps.
When you feel you're ready to do so, ask for a community-wide vote on
the endorsement of this particular distribution as the only one to be
called simply "OpenSolaris."
--
James Carlson, Solaris Networking <james dot d dot carlson at sun dot com>
Sun Microsystems / 35 Network Drive 71.232W Vox +1 781 442 2084
MS UBUR02-212 / Burlington MA 01803-2757 42.496N Fax +1 781 442 1677
_______________________________________________
trademark-policy-dev mailing list
trademark-policy-dev at opensolaris dot org
http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/trademark-policy-dev
|
|
|
|
|
Posts:
975
From:
US
Registered:
3/9/05
|
|
|
|
Re: [ogb-discuss] [indiana-discuss] I'm
sorry, but I just don't get it
Posted:
Nov 2, 2007 11:10 AM
in response to: sarad
|
|
On Fri, 2007-11-02 at 12:55 -0500, Sara Dornsife wrote:
> > It's all about the name. Back away from "OpenSolaris Developer Preview"
> > and this nightmare will end.
>
> And then what? I hope that doesn't sound facetious, I'm really asking
> what you see as next steps.
I think those steps include:
1) Finish the trademark policy (as a side note I've had past experience
with naming controversies and am more familiar with trademark law than I
want to be. I sent in what I hope are constructive comments on the
draft this morning; haven't seen any responses yet).
2) Do the usual and customary open reviews of the Indiana proposal
(including arc review, design reviews, code reviews, cteam, etc.), and
make changes based on review feedback. (This should happen in parallel
with (1))
3) pick a name that complies with the trademark policy.
and finally:
Follow the process in the opensolaris constitution to vote on the
release; if that process doesn't work, propose amendments to the
constitution to fix the process.
- Bill
_______________________________________________
trademark-policy-dev mailing list
trademark-policy-dev at opensolaris dot org
http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/trademark-policy-dev
|
|
|
|
|
Posts:
62
From:
Los Angeles
Registered:
1/31/07
|
|
|
|
Re: [indiana-discuss] [ogb-discuss] I'm
sorry, but I just don't get it
Posted:
Nov 2, 2007 11:18 AM
in response to: sarad
|
|
On 11/2/07, Sara Dornsife <Sara dot Dornsife at sun dot com> wrote:
And then what? I hope that doesn't sound facetious, I'm really asking
what you see as next steps.
Sara
Compromise?
Rename "OpenSolaris Developer Preview" to "an OpenSolaris Developer Preview"
(Notice the "an" part? Good)
Have Ian make an apology to the community for not letting the community know what the name of the distro would be prior to the distro being released, and for not allowing discussion and buy-in.
Of course, using the word "an" would imply that there are others. If in fact it is Ian's position that there either are no other or that other distros should not exist, then I suggest this "community" is in rough waters.
I think then that the OGB needs to work with Sun to get the trademark acceptable policy usage ironed-out an published. At which point it will be clear how the other distros can call themselves. This is especially important because I think many more distros will appear in the near future.
So I have a couple of questions: A) Does that solution appeal to anyone? B) Would it work to ease the tension? C) Would it help in the long term? A final thought: I personally look forward to installing Indiana, and I think it's a wonderful effort and kudos by the bucketful need to be swung in all directions. (It hangs on windows virtual pc 2004 btw, will try harder and file bug report). I also look forward to messing with the new packaging system. I think that's going to make a world of difference.
-- Chris Mahan http://www.christophermahan.com/chris_mahan at yahoo dot com
chris dot mahan at gmail dot comcell 818.943.1850
_______________________________________________
trademark-policy-dev mailing list
trademark-policy-dev at opensolaris dot org
http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/trademark-policy-dev
|
|
|
|
|
Posts:
1,495
From:
Registered:
5/18/05
|
|
|
|
Re: [indiana-discuss] [ogb-discuss]
I'm sorry, but I just don't get it
Posted:
Nov 2, 2007 1:55 PM
in response to: sarad
|
|
Sara Dornsife wrote:
>> It's all about the name. Back away from "OpenSolaris Developer Preview"
>> and this nightmare will end.
>>
>
> And then what? I hope that doesn't sound facetious, I'm really asking
> what you see as next steps.
Seriously: Mend your bridges with the community you diss'ed:
Engage with the Desktop, HPC, Install/Pkging and ARC communities
by asking something like "we would like to make the Indiana Project
into something that could be named "OpenSolaris-foo - how can you
help us/what do we need to do to get to that point?"
You could also try having a public conversation on the topic of
"We've got a developer preview ready, and would like to position
it as an OpenSolaris Developer Preview. How can we do that in a
way that engages (rather than disenfranchises) the larger community?"
Usually, the flow is
Get an idea, discuss it with all of the stakeholders,
come to a mutually agreeable conclusion, then act in concert
on the result.
The Indiana developer preview naming decision seems to instead
have done
Get an idea, discuss it with executives at Sun, announce
the results to the stakeholders as an already-decided fact
and start acting unilaterally on the result.
The first builds a community, the second erodes one.
-John
_______________________________________________
trademark-policy-dev mailing list
trademark-policy-dev at opensolaris dot org
http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/trademark-policy-dev
|
|
|
|
|
Shawn Walker
swalker@opensolaris....
|
|
|
|
Re: [advocacy-discuss] [indiana-discuss]
[ogb-discuss] I'm sorry, but I just don't get it
Posted:
Nov 2, 2007 1:58 PM
in response to: plocher
|
|
On 02/11/2007, John Plocher <John dot Plocher at sun dot com> wrote:
> The Indiana developer preview naming decision seems to instead
> have done
>
> Get an idea, discuss it with executives at Sun, announce
> the results to the stakeholders as an already-decided fact
> and start acting unilaterally on the result.
>
> The first builds a community, the second erodes one.
John that isn't fair. You were at the summit, if you remember, we had
quite a long and heated discussion with folks that weren't even
associated with Sun about the name as well as on the mailing lists for
a few weeks before any action was taken.
--
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
_______________________________________________
trademark-policy-dev mailing list
trademark-policy-dev at opensolaris dot org
http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/trademark-policy-dev
|
|
|
|
|
Posts:
132
From:
US
Registered:
10/18/05
|
|
|
|
Re: [indiana-discuss] [ogb-discuss] I'm
sorry, but I just don't get it
Posted:
Nov 2, 2007 11:19 AM
in response to: sommerfe
|
|
On Fri, 2007-11-02 at 13:42 -0400, Bill Sommerfeld wrote:
> Names are very important.
Absolutely.
> Pick a new one that properly communicates this release's status as an
> experimental prototype produced by a subset of the community without
> prior broad review, and all will be well.
>
> To me, at least, "Preview" has a strong connotation of "almost done".
Hmmmm, I look at it as work in progress. The web page clearly
indicates that another preview is coming, so almost done may be a
bit strong. How about a consolidation of ideas that the project team
is thinking about, in a state suitable for public viewing ?
> The current name is already causing confusion -- on one sun-internal
> list someone seemed to think it was baked enough that it could go -- in
> its current form -- on ruggedized mil-spec laptops for mission-critical
> applications.
well that's an issue :) but has nothing to do with the preview release.
> It's a very promising start but parts of it are held together with duct
> tape and bailing wire and it's not ready for prime time.
And as a preview, I wouldn't expect much more. I've seen Fedora
previews that were way less polished, and that's after the community
had already gone through several releases. I will say that I got more
than I expected on first boot, and that was cool.
> > I'm sorry, but I just don't get it. Not in the least bit.
>
> It's all about the name. Back away from "OpenSolaris Developer Preview"
> and this nightmare will end.
Most respectfully disagree. While I respect and admire a lot of the
passion shown in some of these threads, the community has to have a
distribution with easy association. and then we have to work hard to
get OpenSolaris from noun to adjective.
bob
_______________________________________________
trademark-policy-dev mailing list
trademark-policy-dev at opensolaris dot org
http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/trademark-policy-dev
|
|
|
|
|
Posts:
191
From:
US
Registered:
6/25/05
|
|
|
|
Re: [indiana-discuss] [ogb-discuss] I'm
sorry, but I just don't get it
Posted:
Nov 2, 2007 12:19 PM
in response to: sommerfe
|
|
On Nov 2, 2007, at 10:42, Bill Sommerfeld wrote:
> On Fri, 2007-11-02 at 13:16 -0400, Ian Murdock wrote:
>> I don't even know where to begin.
>
> You should start with the choice of name.
>
> Names are very important.
I don't agree Bill .. this focus on names and renaming and rebranding
that seems to keep cropping up every couple of years around here
looks (to me) more like a cult that keeps changing it's name in order
to disassociate with their bad history and confuse new converts .. if
we're not fixing the underlying process problems, masking it with a
name change really doesn't do anything but expose the same sets of
problems while exponentially adding new ones .. don't get me wrong,
Open[ing] Solaris - absolutely huge, but arguing about what can be
named OpenSolaris[TM] is almost like arguing about someone else named
"Bill" (hmm .. wild Bill[TM] Hickok is souring my good name) and
fearing that "Bill" the person might be confused with "bill" the
financial statement i just got in the mail, or maybe that "Guy" the
person[TM] is confused with "guy" what Guy really is ..
language is really about use (apologies to wittgenstein), and naming
should really wash out into usage .. call it "oscar odd couple
release" for all i [we?] care .. as long as we're talking about the
same thing and the underlying bits are good it'll develop a life of
it's own without all this pointless name wrangling
just my $2 (inflation you know)
---
.je
_______________________________________________
trademark-policy-dev mailing list
trademark-policy-dev at opensolaris dot org
http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/trademark-policy-dev
|
|
|
|
|
Bryan Cantrill
bmc@eng.sun.com
|
|
|
|
Re: [osol-discuss] I'm sorry,
but I just don't get it
Posted:
Nov 2, 2007 10:42 AM
in response to: Ian Murdock
|
|
Ian,
> All right.
>
> I don't even know where to begin.
>
> Does it matter at all that the feedback outside this community to
> the idea that we're producing a binary distribution called
> OpenSolaris has almost universally been: "Duh. What took so long?"
>
> Does it matter that the initial feedback on the Developer Preview
> has been overwhelming positive, that so many more people in the
> world are talking about OpenSolaris--that the approach is WORKING?
>
> Does it matter that we literally MOVED MOUNTAINS to get to where we
> are today.. To create this community in the first place, to free the IP,
> to reprioritize, to get the vast resources Sun dedicates to Solaris
> focused on doing their work in the open, to evangelize within the
> company the importance of continuing to open up such that those outside
> of Sun can participate in future development on an equal footing?
>
> Does it matter that we are inviting the community to participate
> in a discussion about how to enable broader use of the OpenSolaris
> brand, to build out a ecosystem of distributions that are compatible,
> to solve the Linux fragmentation problem before it even becomes
> a problem? What other company has done this? Shouldn't we be applauded
> for being willing to take this step--or is this just another
> case of Sun being held to a much different standard than everyone else?
>
> And, yes, does it matter that Sun holds a large stake in this
> community, PAYS the vast majority of people here for the privilege of
> being able to spend their days doing what they love, gets flamed
> repeatedly by many of those same people for our trouble, and in return
> thinks it reasonable to have _some_ say in how the community functions?
> Or is that a sign of evil intentions? Do we have to completely
> abdicate to "be community"? Isn't that taxation without representation?
>
> Or is all that insignificant, irrelevant? We haven't given everything,
> so therefore we've given nothing?
>
> I'm sorry, but I just don't get it. Not in the least bit.
I assume that you actually _do_ get it -- that your plea of ignorance is
rhetorical ploy and not an actual confession of limited mental capacity --
but for the sake of argument, allow me to clarify: the issue is
nomenclature. That's it; it's not more complicated than that. As members
of our community's elected body have made exhaustively clear, there is
a consensus that a single OpenSolaris-derived distribution -- even one
emanating from Sun -- should not have exclusive use of the name
"OpenSolaris". That is, a distribution should be allowed to be derived
from OpenSolaris, but no one distribution should be allowed to simply
_be_ OpenSolaris.
So I guess it's my turn to say that I don't get it: given that this is
such a small issue -- and one in which our elected body is so clearly
speaking with one voice -- why do you insist on persisting down what is
clearly such a divisive path?
- Bryan
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bryan Cantrill, Sun Microsystems FishWorks. http://blogs.sun.com/bmc
_______________________________________________
trademark-policy-dev mailing list
trademark-policy-dev at opensolaris dot org
http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/trademark-policy-dev
|
|
|
|
|
Posts:
651
From:
Registered:
5/25/05
|
|
|
|
Re: [osol-discuss] I'm sorry,
but I just don't get it
Posted:
Nov 2, 2007 11:06 AM
in response to: Bryan Cantrill
|
|
Bryan Cantrill wrote:
<pre wrap="">Ian,
</pre>
<pre wrap="">All right.
I don't even know where to begin.
Does it matter at all that the feedback outside this community to
the idea that we're producing a binary distribution called
OpenSolaris has almost universally been: "Duh. What took so long?"
Does it matter that the initial feedback on the Developer Preview
has been overwhelming positive, that so many more people in the
world are talking about OpenSolaris--that the approach is WORKING?
Does it matter that we literally MOVED MOUNTAINS to get to where we
are today.. To create this community in the first place, to free the IP,
to reprioritize, to get the vast resources Sun dedicates to Solaris
focused on doing their work in the open, to evangelize within the
company the importance of continuing to open up such that those outside
of Sun can participate in future development on an equal footing?
Does it matter that we are inviting the community to participate
in a discussion about how to enable broader use of the OpenSolaris
brand, to build out a ecosystem of distributions that are compatible,
to solve the Linux fragmentation problem before it even becomes
a problem? What other company has done this? Shouldn't we be applauded
for being willing to take this step--or is this just another
case of Sun being held to a much different standard than everyone else?
And, yes, does it matter that Sun holds a large stake in this
community, PAYS the vast majority of people here for the privilege of
being able to spend their days doing what they love, gets flamed
repeatedly by many of those same people for our trouble, and in return
thinks it reasonable to have _some_ say in how the community functions?
Or is that a sign of evil intentions? Do we have to completely
abdicate to "be community"? Isn't that taxation without representation?
Or is all that insignificant, irrelevant? We haven't given everything,
so therefore we've given nothing?
I'm sorry, but I just don't get it. Not in the least bit.
</pre>
<pre wrap=""><!---->
I assume that you actually _do_ get it -- that your plea of ignorance is
rhetorical ploy and not an actual confession of limited mental capacity --
but for the sake of argument, allow me to clarify: the issue is
nomenclature. That's it; it's not more complicated than that. As members
of our community's elected body have made exhaustively clear, there is
a consensus that a single OpenSolaris-derived distribution -- even one
emanating from Sun -- should not have exclusive use of the name
"OpenSolaris". That is, a distribution should be allowed to be derived
from OpenSolaris, but no one distribution should be allowed to simply
_be_ OpenSolaris.
</pre>
There has absolutely not been consensus reached.
<pre wrap="">
So I guess it's my turn to say that I don't get it: given that this is
such a small issue -- and one in which our elected body is so clearly
speaking with one voice -- why do you insist on persisting down what is
clearly such a divisive path?
</pre>
This is obviously NOT a small issue.
<pre wrap="">
- Bryan
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bryan Cantrill, Sun Microsystems FishWorks. http://blogs.sun.com/bmc
_______________________________________________
trademark-policy-dev mailing list
trademark-policy-dev at opensolaris dot org
http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/trademark-policy-dev
</pre>
|
|
|
|
|
Bryan Cantrill
bmc@eng.sun.com
|
|
|
|
Re: [osol-discuss] I'm sorry,
but I just don't get it
Posted:
Nov 2, 2007 11:22 AM
in response to: sarad
|
|
> >>And, yes, does it matter that Sun holds a large stake in this
> >>community, PAYS the vast majority of people here for the privilege of
> >>being able to spend their days doing what they love, gets flamed
> >>repeatedly by many of those same people for our trouble, and in return
> >>thinks it reasonable to have _some_ say in how the community functions?
> >>Or is that a sign of evil intentions? Do we have to completely
> >>abdicate to "be community"? Isn't that taxation without representation?
> >>
> >>Or is all that insignificant, irrelevant? We haven't given everything,
> >>so therefore we've given nothing?
> >>
> >>I'm sorry, but I just don't get it. Not in the least bit.
> >>
> >
> >I assume that you actually _do_ get it -- that your plea of ignorance is
> >rhetorical ploy and not an actual confession of limited mental capacity --
> >but for the sake of argument, allow me to clarify: the issue is
> >nomenclature. That's it; it's not more complicated than that. As members
> >of our community's elected body have made exhaustively clear, there is
> >a consensus that a single OpenSolaris-derived distribution -- even one
> >emanating from Sun -- should not have exclusive use of the name
> >"OpenSolaris". That is, a distribution should be allowed to be derived
> >from OpenSolaris, but no one distribution should be allowed to simply
> >_be_ OpenSolaris.
> >
>
> There has absolutely not been consensus reached.
Really? I'm looking at the OGB members weighing in on Keith's proposal
(OGB/2007/004) on ogb-discuss, and it sure looks like rough consensus to
me -- and I think that the OGB sentiment is pretty representative of what
we're seeing on the larger lists. I guess we'll see when the OGB votes
on this next Wednesday, but I don't see the evidence to conclude that
the OGB is not converging on this issue.
> >So I guess it's my turn to say that I don't get it: given that this is
> >such a small issue -- and one in which our elected body is so clearly
> >speaking with one voice -- why do you insist on persisting down what is
> >clearly such a divisive path?
> >
>
> This is obviously NOT a small issue.
Well, of course not -- nomenclature is very important. But I think it's
quite small in terms of the success of Indiana (as others have pointed
out, the positive reviews have nothing to do with the nomenclature), which
is why I'm a bit baffled as to why this divisive path has not only been
taken, but insisted upon...
- Bryan
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bryan Cantrill, Sun Microsystems FishWorks. http://blogs.sun.com/bmc
_______________________________________________
trademark-policy-dev mailing list
trademark-policy-dev at opensolaris dot org
http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/trademark-policy-dev
|
|
|
|
|
Posts:
975
From:
US
Registered:
3/9/05
|
|
|
|
Re: [advocacy-discuss] [osol-discuss]
I'm sorry, but I just don't get it
Posted:
Nov 2, 2007 11:28 AM
in response to: sarad
|
|
On Fri, 2007-11-02 at 13:06 -0500, Sara Dornsife wrote:
> > As members
> > of our community's elected body have made exhaustively clear, there is
> > a consensus that a single OpenSolaris-derived distribution -- even one
> > emanating from Sun -- should not have exclusive use of the name
> > "OpenSolaris".
>
> There has absolutely not been consensus reached.
In the broader community, no, but in the OGB, yes:
See
http://mail.opensolaris.org/pipermail/trademark-policy-dev/2007-November/000322.html
Glynn Foster has recused himself from the discussion.
All other OGB members have been critical of the choice of name.
_______________________________________________
trademark-policy-dev mailing list
trademark-policy-dev at opensolaris dot org
http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/trademark-policy-dev
|
|
|
|
|
Posts:
5,504
From:
US
Registered:
3/9/05
|
|
|
|
Re: [indiana-discuss] [advocacy-discuss]
[osol-discuss] I'm sorry, but I just don't get it
Posted:
Nov 2, 2007 11:37 AM
in response to: sommerfe
|
|
Bill Sommerfeld wrote:
> On Fri, 2007-11-02 at 13:06 -0500, Sara Dornsife wrote:
>
>>> As members
>>> of our community's elected body have made exhaustively clear, there is
>>> a consensus that a single OpenSolaris-derived distribution -- even one
>>> emanating from Sun -- should not have exclusive use of the name
>>> "OpenSolaris".
>> There has absolutely not been consensus reached.
>
> In the broader community, no, but in the OGB, yes:
>
> See
> http://mail.opensolaris.org/pipermail/trademark-policy-dev/2007-November/000322.html
>
> Glynn Foster has recused himself from the discussion.
>
> All other OGB members have been critical of the choice of name.
I would clarify that the OGB doesn't have a consensus, nor even had a discussion
really yet, on whether there should ever be a distribution with exclusive use
of the name, just that the name shouldn't be taken exclusively by a distribution
the community hasn't agreed to endorse that way, nor even seen until after it
was announced it was using the name.
I suspect we'll get to the same end result someday, but as a deliberate
decision made by the community.
--
-Alan Coopersmith- alan dot coopersmith at sun dot com
Sun Microsystems, Inc. - X Window System Engineering
_______________________________________________
trademark-policy-dev mailing list
trademark-policy-dev at opensolaris dot org
http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/trademark-policy-dev
|
|
|
|
|
Posts:
624
From:
IE
Registered:
6/14/05
|
|
|
|
Re: [osol-discuss] I'm sorry,
but I just don't get it
Posted:
Nov 2, 2007 11:20 AM
in response to: Bryan Cantrill
|
|
On Fri, 2007-11-02 at 10:42 -0700, Bryan Cantrill wrote:
> nomenclature. That's it; it's not more complicated than that. As members
> of our community's elected body have made exhaustively clear, there is
> a consensus that a single OpenSolaris-derived distribution -- even one
> emanating from Sun -- should not have exclusive use of the name
> "OpenSolaris".
We all thought it was okay to burn fossil fuels a few years ago; there
was a community consensus even that it was okay - this appears to be a
similar issue (though of less global importance I admit).
When do we start experimenting with the way we package our OS to see
whether that experiment enriches the community ? If we get more users as
a result of having a distro called "OpenSolaris", then that's great - if
we get fewer, then we'll have tried and failed, but at least we'll have
tried.
cheers,
tim
--
Tim Foster, Sun Microsystems Inc, Solaris Engineering Ops
http://blogs.sun.com/timf
_______________________________________________
trademark-policy-dev mailing list
trademark-policy-dev at opensolaris dot org
http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/trademark-policy-dev
|
|
|
|
|
Posts:
6,807
From:
US
Registered:
3/9/05
|
|
|
|
Re: [ogb-discuss] [osol-discuss] I'm sorry,
but I just don't get it
Posted:
Nov 2, 2007 11:39 AM
in response to: timf
|
|
Tim Foster writes:
> We all thought it was okay to burn fossil fuels a few years ago; there
> was a community consensus even that it was okay - this appears to be a
> similar issue (though of less global importance I admit).
That's weak.
My reduction (or increase or lack of change altogether) in use of
fossil fuels does not materially affect your ability to use them. The
growing consensus on the matter is an influence, but does not force my
hand or yours.
Insisting that there is only one true reference distribution of
OpenSolaris, and that Indiana -- not Nexenta, not SchilliX, not any
other -- delivers it, does indeed limit the ability of others to use
the same name.
It places constraints on the community and prevents other actions in
the future. If Joerg wants to make SchilliX into _the_ reference
distribution as an alternative to Indiana, he cannot. There already
is one reference, and two would be at least one too many.
In addition, it disenfranchises the other distributions. They're not
equal. They're lesser variants that, just by definition, cannot be as
compatible to real OpenSolaris in as much as they're intentionally not
identical.
I think the theory that some are operating under here is that all
community property (such as the exclusive use of this name) is up for
grabs, and the community itself needn't be involved in the decision to
use it. The burden, in this view, would be on the second person to
lay the same claim: Joerg would need to wrest control back by asking
for a vote, with the distinct advantage going to the existing user.
Given the relatively young state of the OpenSolaris community, I think
that's a dangerous position to take. The consensus on the other side
-- that a trademark policy is needed and that a community-wide vote
should precede exclusive use of community space -- seems more prudent
to me.
--
James Carlson, Solaris Networking <james dot d dot carlson at sun dot com>
Sun Microsystems / 35 Network Drive 71.232W Vox +1 781 442 2084
MS UBUR02-212 / Burlington MA 01803-2757 42.496N Fax +1 781 442 1677
_______________________________________________
trademark-policy-dev mailing list
trademark-policy-dev at opensolaris dot org
http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/trademark-policy-dev
|
|
|
|
|
Shawn Walker
swalker@opensolaris....
|
|
|
|
Re: [osol-discuss] I'm sorry,
but I just don't get it
Posted:
Nov 2, 2007 12:26 PM
in response to: Bryan Cantrill
|
|
On 02/11/2007, Bryan Cantrill <bmc at eng dot sun dot com> wrote:
>
> Ian,
>
> > All right.
> >
> > I don't even know where to begin.
> >
> > Does it matter at all that the feedback outside this community to
> > the idea that we're producing a binary distribution called
> > OpenSolaris has almost universally been: "Duh. What took so long?"
> >
> > Does it matter that the initial feedback on the Developer Preview
> > has been overwhelming positive, that so many more people in the
> > world are talking about OpenSolaris--that the approach is WORKING?
> >
> > Does it matter that we literally MOVED MOUNTAINS to get to where we
> > are today.. To create this community in the first place, to free the IP,
> > to reprioritize, to get the vast resources Sun dedicates to Solaris
> > focused on doing their work in the open, to evangelize within the
> > company the importance of continuing to open up such that those outside
> > of Sun can participate in future development on an equal footing?
> >
> > Does it matter that we are inviting the community to participate
> > in a discussion about how to enable broader use of the OpenSolaris
> > brand, to build out a ecosystem of distributions that are compatible,
> > to solve the Linux fragmentation problem before it even becomes
> > a problem? What other company has done this? Shouldn't we be applauded
> > for being willing to take this step--or is this just another
> > case of Sun being held to a much different standard than everyone else?
> >
> > And, yes, does it matter that Sun holds a large stake in this
> > community, PAYS the vast majority of people here for the privilege of
> > being able to spend their days doing what they love, gets flamed
> > repeatedly by many of those same people for our trouble, and in return
> > thinks it reasonable to have _some_ say in how the community functions?
> > Or is that a sign of evil intentions? Do we have to completely
> > abdicate to "be community"? Isn't that taxation without representation?
> >
> > Or is all that insignificant, irrelevant? We haven't given everything,
> > so therefore we've given nothing?
> >
> > I'm sorry, but I just don't get it. Not in the least bit.
>
> I assume that you actually _do_ get it -- that your plea of ignorance is
> rhetorical ploy and not an actual confession of limited mental capacity --
> but for the sake of argument, allow me to clarify: the issue is
> nomenclature. That's it; it's not more complicated than that. As members
> of our community's elected body have made exhaustively clear, there is
> a consensus that a single OpenSolaris-derived distribution -- even one
> emanating from Sun -- should not have exclusive use of the name
> "OpenSolaris". That is, a distribution should be allowed to be derived
> from OpenSolaris, but no one distribution should be allowed to simply
> _be_ OpenSolaris.
Consensus? Among whom? It should be obvious that there are actually
many people in this community that do believe there should be one
*reference* distribution called OpenSolaris.
You didn't ask me for my vote on it; so your consensus is among
yourselves; not the community. If you still think it is, then you must
be using an interesting definition of consensus.
> So I guess it's my turn to say that I don't get it: given that this is
> such a small issue -- and one in which our elected body is so clearly
> speaking with one voice -- why do you insist on persisting down what is
> clearly such a divisive path?
Such a small issue? Obviously it isn't, or our inboxes wouldn't be exploding.
I also think it's a bit silly to say that the elected body is speaking
with one voice. If I recall correctly, Glynn abstained.
--
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
_______________________________________________
trademark-policy-dev mailing list
trademark-policy-dev at opensolaris dot org
http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/trademark-policy-dev
|
|
|
|
|
Posts:
3,398
From:
Registered:
3/9/05
|
|
|
|
Re: [osol-discuss] I'm sorry,
but I just don't get it
Posted:
Nov 2, 2007 1:01 PM
in response to: Shawn Walker
|
|
>Consensus? Among whom? It should be obvious that there are actually
>many people in this community that do believe there should be one
>*reference* distribution called OpenSolaris.
That is not the argument, and you know it. The argument is that no single
project is allowed to take the OpenSolaris name and claim that it owns it.
I think there is no argument that Indiana has done so.
>You didn't ask me for my vote on it; so your consensus is among
>yourselves; not the community. If you still think it is, then you must
>be using an interesting definition of consensus.
>I also think it's a bit silly to say that the elected body is speaking
>with one voice. If I recall correctly, Glynn abstained.
As Glynn works for Ian he is in a rather more difficult position than all
of us.
Casper
_______________________________________________
trademark-policy-dev mailing list
trademark-policy-dev at opensolaris dot org
http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/trademark-policy-dev
|
|
|
|
|
Shawn Walker
swalker@opensolaris....
|
|
|
|
Re: [osol-discuss] I'm sorry,
but I just don't get it
Posted:
Nov 2, 2007 1:04 PM
in response to: casper
|
|
On 02/11/2007, Casper.***@sun.com <Casper.***@sun.com> wrote:
>
> >Consensus? Among whom? It should be obvious that there are actually
> >many people in this community that do believe there should be one
> >*reference* distribution called OpenSolaris.
>
> That is not the argument, and you know it. The argument is that no single
> project is allowed to take the OpenSolaris name and claim that it owns it.
> I think there is no argument that Indiana has done so.
>
> >You didn't ask me for my vote on it; so your consensus is among
> >yourselves; not the community. If you still think it is, then you must
> >be using an interesting definition of consensus.
>
>
> >I also think it's a bit silly to say that the elected body is speaking
> >with one voice. If I recall correctly, Glynn abstained.
>
> As Glynn works for Ian he is in a rather more difficult position than all
> of us.
Then you shouldn't say you speak with "one voice" because that implies
unanimity which is not the case here. You should say "the majority of
the OGB feels X way."
--
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
_______________________________________________
trademark-policy-dev mailing list
trademark-policy-dev at opensolaris dot org
http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/trademark-policy-dev
|
|
|
|
|
Posts:
3,398
From:
Registered:
3/9/05
|
|
|
|
Re: [osol-discuss] I'm sorry,
but I just don't get it
Posted:
Nov 2, 2007 1:17 PM
in response to: Shawn Walker
|
|
>Then you shouldn't say you speak with "one voice" because that implies
>unanimity which is not the case here. You should say "the majority of
>the OGB feels X way."
That is not how abstentions are generally counted.
Casper
_______________________________________________
trademark-policy-dev mailing list
trademark-policy-dev at opensolaris dot org
http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/trademark-policy-dev
|
|
|
|
|
Shawn Walker
swalker@opensolaris....
|
|
|
|
Re: [osol-discuss] I'm sorry,
but I just don't get it
Posted:
Nov 2, 2007 1:34 PM
in response to: casper
|
|
On 02/11/2007, Casper.***@sun.com <Casper.***@sun.com> wrote:
>
>
> >Then you shouldn't say you speak with "one voice" because that implies
> >unanimity which is not the case here. You should say "the majority of
> >the OGB feels X way."
>
> That is not how abstentions are generally counted.
Well, sorry, but for those not used the extreme level of bureaucracy
(which isn't your fault) surrounding this project. Can you please use
"laymen's terms"? Seriously. Otherwise, you're going to be implying
things you don't mean to because people don't take the same meaning
from your wording.
--
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
_______________________________________________
trademark-policy-dev mailing list
trademark-policy-dev at opensolaris dot org
http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/trademark-policy-dev
|
|
|
|
|
Posts:
76
From:
Indianapolis Indiana
Registered:
12/20/06
|
|
|
|
Re: [indiana-discuss] [osol-discuss] I'm
sorry, but I just don't get it
Posted:
Nov 2, 2007 2:02 PM
in response to: Shawn Walker
|
|
>>> Then you shouldn't say you speak with "one voice" because that implies
>>> unanimity which is not the case here. You should say "the majority of
>>> the OGB feels X way."
>>
>> That is not how abstentions are generally counted.
>
> Well, sorry, but for those not used the extreme level of bureaucracy
> (which isn't your fault) surrounding this project. Can you please use
> "laymen's terms"? Seriously. Otherwise, you're going to be implying
> things you don't mean to because people don't take the same meaning from
> your wording.
Abstention is a removal of oneself from a process, generally due to a
serious conflict of interest (generally, an inability to provide an
unbiased response) of one sort or another.
Proper consideration of the OGB's position on an issue should actually be
consideration of all the members of the OGB who have not abstained from
discussion. The full set minus abstentions.
It sounds like the OGB is being rather consistent.
--elijah
_______________________________________________
trademark-policy-dev mailing list
trademark-policy-dev at opensolaris dot org
http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/trademark-policy-dev
|
|
|
|
|
Shawn Walker
swalker@opensolaris....
|
|
|
|
Re: [indiana-discuss] [osol-discuss] I'm
sorry, but I just don't get it
Posted:
Nov 2, 2007 2:04 PM
in response to: elijah
|
|
On 02/11/2007, elw at stderr dot org <elw at stderr dot org> wrote:
>
>
> >>> Then you shouldn't say you speak with "one voice" because that implies
> >>> unanimity which is not the case here. You should say "the majority of
> >>> the OGB feels X way."
> >>
> >> That is not how abstentions are generally counted.
> >
> > Well, sorry, but for those not used the extreme level of bureaucracy
> > (which isn't your fault) surrounding this project. Can you please use
> > "laymen's terms"? Seriously. Otherwise, you're going to be implying
> > things you don't mean to because people don't take the same meaning from
> > your wording.
>
>
> Abstention is a removal of oneself from a process, generally due to a
> serious conflict of interest (generally, an inability to provide an
> unbiased response) of one sort or another.
>
> Proper consideration of the OGB's position on an issue should actually be
> consideration of all the members of the OGB who have not abstained from
> discussion. The full set minus abstentions.
>
> It sounds like the OGB is being rather consistent.
Consistent and understandable to people not used to layers of
bureaucracy are two different things. All I'm asking for is to be
approachable and clear in communication.
What I get instead is a torrent emails repeating some lame dictionary
definitions many people probably aren't familiar 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
_______________________________________________
trademark-policy-dev mailing list
trademark-policy-dev at opensolaris dot org
http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/trademark-policy-dev
|
|
|
|
|
Posts:
383
From:
GB
Registered:
10/27/05
|
|
|
|
Re: [osol-discuss] [indiana-discuss] I'm
sorry, but I just don't get it
Posted:
Nov 2, 2007 2:44 PM
in response to: Shawn Walker
|
|
On Fri, Nov 02, 2007 at 04:04:08PM -0500, Shawn Walker wrote:
> On 02/11/2007, elw at stderr dot org <elw at stderr dot org> wrote:
> >
> >
> > >>> Then you shouldn't say you speak with "one voice" because that implies
> > >>> unanimity which is not the case here. You should say "the majority of
> > >>> the OGB feels X way."
> > >>
> > >> That is not how abstentions are generally counted.
> > >
> > > Well, sorry, but for those not used the extreme level of bureaucracy
> > > (which isn't your fault) surrounding this project. Can you please use
> > > "laymen's terms"? Seriously. Otherwise, you're going to be implying
> > > things you don't mean to because people don't take the same meaning from
> > > your wording.
> >
> >
> > Abstention is a removal of oneself from a process, generally due to a
> > serious conflict of interest (generally, an inability to provide an
> > unbiased response) of one sort or another.
> >
> > Proper consideration of the OGB's position on an issue should actually be
> > consideration of all the members of the OGB who have not abstained from
> > discussion. The full set minus abstentions.
> >
> > It sounds like the OGB is being rather consistent.
>
> Consistent and understandable to people not used to layers of
> bureaucracy are two different things. All I'm asking for is to be
> approachable and clear in communication.
>
> What I get instead is a torrent emails repeating some lame dictionary
> definitions many people probably aren't familiar with.
Shawn, "abstain" only has one meaning. It's perfectly consistent and in
layman's terms as it stands.
Ceri
--
That must be wonderful! I don't understand it at all.
-- Moliere
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (FreeBSD)
iD8DBQFHK5pSocfcwTS3JF8RAinQAJ9SF8f2Cg5P+fpsc5/d/7bWN6cjtwCbBivj
pm+4eImvUwPM43hrCK1VlRs=
=S7PD
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
_______________________________________________
trademark-policy-dev mailing list
trademark-policy-dev at opensolaris dot org
http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/trademark-policy-dev
|
|
|
|
|
Shawn Walker
swalker@opensolaris....
|
|
|
|
Re: [osol-discuss] [indiana-discuss] I'm
sorry, but I just don't get it
Posted:
Nov 2, 2007 2:48 PM
in response to: ceri
|
|
On 02/11/2007, Ceri Davies <ceri at submonkey dot net> wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 02, 2007 at 04:04:08PM -0500, Shawn Walker wrote:
> > On 02/11/2007, elw at stderr dot org <elw at stderr dot org> wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > > >>> Then you shouldn't say you speak with "one voice" because that implies
> > > >>> unanimity which is not the case here. You should say "the majority of
> > > >>> the OGB feels X way."
> > > >>
> > > >> That is not how abstentions are generally counted.
> > > >
> > > > Well, sorry, but for those not used the extreme level of bureaucracy
> > > > (which isn't your fault) surrounding this project. Can you please use
> > > > "laymen's terms"? Seriously. Otherwise, you're going to be implying
> > > > things you don't mean to because people don't take the same meaning from
> > > > your wording.
> > >
> > >
> > > Abstention is a removal of oneself from a process, generally due to a
> > > serious conflict of interest (generally, an inability to provide an
> > > unbiased response) of one sort or another.
> > >
> > > Proper consideration of the OGB's position on an issue should actually be
> > > consideration of all the members of the OGB who have not abstained from
> > > discussion. The full set minus abstentions.
> > >
> > > It sounds like the OGB is being rather consistent.
> >
> > Consistent and understandable to people not used to layers of
> > bureaucracy are two different things. All I'm asking for is to be
> > approachable and clear in communication.
> >
> > What I get instead is a torrent emails repeating some lame dictionary
> > definitions many people probably aren't familiar with.
>
> Shawn, "abstain" only has one meaning. It's perfectly consistent and in
> layman's terms as it stands.
Abstain has only one meaning but was not used in the context given.
The key phrase that I saw was "with one voice" which clearly has a
completely different meaning to many people. So please stop playing
word games with me.
--
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
_______________________________________________
trademark-policy-dev mailing list
trademark-policy-dev at opensolaris dot org
http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/trademark-policy-dev
|
|
|
|
|
Posts:
651
From:
Registered:
5/25/05
|
|
|
|
Re: [indiana-discuss] [osol-discuss] I'm
sorry, but I just don't get it
Posted:
Nov 2, 2007 1:41 PM
in response to: casper
|
|
Casper.***@Sun.COM wrote:
<pre wrap="">Consensus? Among whom? It should be obvious that there are actually
many people in this community that do believe there should be one
*reference* distribution called OpenSolaris.
</pre>
<pre wrap=""><!---->
That is not the argument, and you know it. The argument is that no single
project is allowed to take the OpenSolaris name and claim that it owns it.
</pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
If no single project is allowed to take the OpenSolaris name and that
it owns it? If the argument is not about "one *reference* distribution
called OpenSolaris, can you please reconcile these two things for me?<br>
<br>
<blockquote
cite="mid:200711022001.lA2K1v0h010205@dm-holland-02.uk.sun.com"
type="cite">
<pre wrap="">I think there is no argument that Indiana has done so.
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">You didn't ask me for my vote on it; so your consensus is among
yourselves; not the community. If you still think it is, then you must
be using an interesting definition of consensus.
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap=""><!---->
</pre>
<pre wrap="">I also think it's a bit silly to say that the elected body is speaking
with one voice. If I recall correctly, Glynn abstained.
</pre>
<pre wrap=""><!---->
As Glynn works for Ian he is in a rather more difficult position than all
of us.
</pre>
Glynn actually works for me I am proud to say.
<pre wrap="">
Casper
_______________________________________________
indiana-discuss mailing list
indiana-discuss at opensolaris dot org
http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/indiana-discuss
</pre>
_______________________________________________
trademark-policy-dev mailing list
trademark-policy-dev at opensolaris dot org
http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/trademark-policy-dev
|
|
|
|
|
Posts:
975
From:
US
Registered:
3/9/05
|
|
|
|
Re: [ogb-discuss] [indiana-discuss]
[osol-discuss] I'm sorry, but I just don't get it
Posted:
Nov 2, 2007 1:55 PM
in response to: sarad
|
|
On Fri, 2007-11-02 at 15:41 -0500, Sara Dornsife wrote:
> Casper.***@Sun.COM wrote:
> > That is not the argument, and you know it. The argument is that no single
> > project is allowed to take the OpenSolaris name and claim that it owns it.
> >
>
> If no single project is allowed to take the OpenSolaris name and that
> it owns it? If the argument is not about "one *reference* distribution
> called OpenSolaris, can you please reconcile these two things for me?
I don't see any conflict.
No project is allowed to *TAKE* the name for its own use.
The community may (or may not) choose to *GIVE* the name to the project
to use.
- Bill
_______________________________________________
trademark-policy-dev mailing list
trademark-policy-dev at opensolaris dot org
http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/trademark-policy-dev
|
|
|
|
|
Shawn Walker
swalker@opensolaris....
|
|
|
|
Re: [ogb-discuss] [indiana-discuss]
[osol-discuss] I'm sorry, but I just don't get it
Posted:
Nov 2, 2007 1:57 PM
in response to: sommerfe
|
|
On 02/11/2007, Bill Sommerfeld <sommerfeld at sun dot com> wrote:
> The community may (or may not) choose to *GIVE* the name to the project
> to use.
The community hasn't been given the right to give the name to anybody,
or for that matter, take it from anybody. The community explicitly has
no rights over the name whatsoever.
You can't enforce policy that doesn't exist. A policy surrounding the
trademark should have been defined at the inception of the community.
--
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
_______________________________________________
trademark-policy-dev mailing list
trademark-policy-dev at opensolaris dot org
http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/trademark-policy-dev
|
|
|
|
|
Posts:
975
From:
US
Registered:
3/9/05
|
|
|
|
Re: [ogb-discuss] [indiana-discuss]
[osol-discuss] I'm sorry, but I just don't get it
Posted:
Nov 2, 2007 2:00 PM
in response to: Shawn Walker
|
|
On Fri, 2007-11-02 at 15:57 -0500, Shawn Walker wrote:
> The community hasn't been given the right to give the name to anybody,
> or for that matter, take it from anybody. The community explicitly has
> no rights over the name whatsoever.
so, either one of two things has happened:
1) the project is a subsidiary part of the community; if the community
doesn't have the authority to use the name, neither does the project.
2) the project is not a subsidiary part of the community and has no
authority to say its output is the work of the community as a whole.
> You can't enforce policy that doesn't exist. A policy surrounding the
> trademark should have been defined at the inception of the community.
until the policy exists, the project can't possibly have authority to
use the trademark.
- Bill
_______________________________________________
trademark-policy-dev mailing list
trademark-policy-dev at opensolaris dot org
http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/trademark-policy-dev
|
|
|
|
|
Posts:
1,320
From:
US
Registered:
4/27/05
|
|
|
|
Re: [ogb-discuss] [indiana-discuss]
[osol-discuss] I'm sorry, but I just don't get it
Posted:
Nov 2, 2007 2:47 PM
in response to: sommerfe
|
|
Bill Sommerfeld wrote:
> On Fri, 2007-11-02 at 15:57 -0500, Shawn Walker wrote:
>
>> The community hasn't been given the right to give the name to anybody,
>> or for that matter, take it from anybody. The community explicitly has
>> no rights over the name whatsoever.
>>
>
> so, either one of two things has happened:
>
> 1) the project is a subsidiary part of the community; if the community
> doesn't have the authority to use the name, neither does the project.
>
> 2) the project is not a subsidiary part of the community and has no
> authority to say its output is the work of the community as a whole.
>
>
>> You can't enforce policy that doesn't exist. A policy surrounding the
>> trademark should have been defined at the inception of the community.
>>
>
> until the policy exists, the project can't possibly have authority to
> use the trademark.
>
Of course it can. It gets the authority directly from the mark's owner
(Sun.) The fact that it disenfranchises the entire rest of the
community not to be able to use or control its own name, is entirely
beside the point.
-- Garrett
_______________________________________________
trademark-policy-dev mailing list
trademark-policy-dev at opensolaris dot org
http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/trademark-policy-dev
|
|
|
|
|
Posts:
1,320
From:
US
Registered:
4/27/05
|
|
|
|
Re: [ogb-discuss] [indiana-discuss]
[osol-discuss] I'm sorry, but I just don't get it
Posted:
Nov 2, 2007 2:41 PM
in response to: Shawn Walker
|
|
Shawn Walker wrote:
> On 02/11/2007, Bill Sommerfeld <sommerfeld at sun dot com> wrote:
>
>> The community may (or may not) choose to *GIVE* the name to the project
>> to use.
>>
>
> The community hasn't been given the right to give the name to anybody,
> or for that matter, take it from anybody. The community explicitly has
> no rights over the name whatsoever.
>
> You can't enforce policy that doesn't exist. A policy surrounding the
> trademark should have been defined at the inception of the community.
>
>
And it is *precisely* because of *that* problem that I proposed that in
the long run, we should consider one of two courses of action:
1) get Sun to give up the rights to the mark
or
2) create our own mark, and change our identity (sort of what all
the Xen-derived distros had to do).
Yes, it sucks that we're at this impasse, but unless Sun is willing to
do number 1 now, I don't see a way forward other than 2, that doesn't
leave us with the possibility (or likelihood) of being back in the same
boat in a year or three. (A *possible* way would be for Sun to yield
control by some kind of contractual commitment, while it retains
*ownership*. But I think that is no likelier than #1 in the first place.)
At the end of the day/month/year/decade, I think its most likely we're
going to have to set up the non-profit, and settle on number 2. (The
non-profit to manage the mark is required in either case.)
Yeah, it sucks, and pulls energy that is might have been fruitfully
spent elsewhere. But I don't think it would be wise to be too cavalier
about something as fundamental as our core identity.
Now, on another point, I *do* believe Indiana probably should evolve
into The OpenSolaris distribution (or whatever reference name we are
able to choose), because, even though it is mostly staffed by Sun, its
truly open, and (branding aside) really does hold true (or at least more
so than some other alternatives) to the core values embodied in the
historical Solaris code base. But, Sara and Ian, please give the
community the credit and opportunity to come to that conclusion on our
own, rather than having it forced down our throats.
-- Garrett
PS: For the Indiana folks, they need to really *understand* what they
are trying to sell with a brand. If OpenSolaris' brand identity is a
vibrant open community, then the biggest players need to participate
accordingly. If its just another way for Sun to push out beta bits, and
get developer mindshare for the Sun distribution known as Solaris, then
the whole rest of the OGB, the Constitution, etc, is all just a sham and
we should collectively dissolve ourselves.
_______________________________________________
trademark-policy-dev mailing list
trademark-policy-dev at opensolaris dot org
http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/trademark-policy-dev
|
|
|
|
|
Posts:
191
From:
US
Registered:
6/25/05
|
|
|
|
Re: [indiana-discuss] [ogb-discuss]
[osol-discuss] I'm sorry, but I just don't get it
Posted:
Nov 2, 2007 6:50 PM
in response to: gdamore
|
|
On Nov 2, 2007, at 14:41, Garrett D'Amore wrote:
> Shawn Walker wrote:
>> On 02/11/2007, Bill Sommerfeld <sommerfeld at sun dot com> wrote:
>>
>>> The community may (or may not) choose to *GIVE* the name to the
>>> project
>>> to use.
>>>
>>
>> The community hasn't been given the right to give the name to
>> anybody,
>> or for that matter, take it from anybody. The community explicitly
>> has
>> no rights over the name whatsoever.
>>
>> You can't enforce policy that doesn't exist. A policy surrounding the
>> trademark should have been defined at the inception of the community.
>>
>>
>
> And it is *precisely* because of *that* problem that I proposed
> that in
> the long run, we should consider one of two courses of action:
>
> 1) get Sun to give up the rights to the mark
>
> or
>
> 2) create our own mark, and change our identity (sort of what all
> the Xen-derived distros had to do).
and here's to the Op3nSol4riz distro .. with the "Pimpin' Phred" release
_______________________________________________
trademark-policy-dev mailing list
trademark-policy-dev at opensolaris dot org
http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/trademark-policy-dev
|
|
|
|
|
Posts:
624
From:
IE
Registered:
6/14/05
|
|
|
|
Re: [indiana-discuss] I'm sorry,
but I just don't get it
Posted:
Nov 2, 2007 10:45 AM
in response to: Ian Murdock
|
|
+1 This says it all for me. I'm also getting pretty sick of the rather
negative atmosphere around the mailing lists at the moment.
We just shipped a major milestone, and people are doing nothing but
bitching about it. I'm glad the responsible project team are a pretty
thick skinned bunch, because I'd be feeling rather unappreciated if I
were them, based on many of these mails... (perhaps they're all still
recovering from the party)
Can we please start feeling proud of our achievements ? Please ? Beers
all round!
cheers,
tim
On Fri, 2007-11-02 at 13:16 -0400, Ian Murdock wrote:
> All right.
>
> I don't even know where to begin.
>
> Does it matter at all that the feedback outside this community to
> the idea that we're producing a binary distribution called
> OpenSolaris has almost universally been: "Duh. What took so long?"
>
> Does it matter that the initial feedback on the Developer Preview
> has been overwhelming positive, that so many more people in the
> world are talking about OpenSolaris--that the approach is WORKING?
>
> Does it matter that we literally MOVED MOUNTAINS to get to where we
> are today.. To create this community in the first place, to free the IP,
> to reprioritize, to get the vast resources Sun dedicates to Solaris
> focused on doing their work in the open, to evangelize within the
> company the importance of continuing to open up such that those outside
> of Sun can participate in future development on an equal footing?
>
> Does it matter that we are inviting the community to participate
> in a discussion about how to enable broader use of the OpenSolaris
> brand, to build out a ecosystem of distributions that are compatible,
> to solve the Linux fragmentation problem before it even becomes
> a problem? What other company has done this? Shouldn't we be applauded
> for being willing to take this step--or is this just another
> case of Sun being held to a much different standard than everyone else?
>
> And, yes, does it matter that Sun holds a large stake in this
> community, PAYS the vast majority of people here for the privilege of
> being able to spend their days doing what they love, gets flamed
> repeatedly by many of those same people for our trouble, and in return
> thinks it reasonable to have _some_ say in how the community functions?
> Or is that a sign of evil intentions? Do we have to completely
> abdicate to "be community"? Isn't that taxation without representation?
>
> Or is all that insignificant, irrelevant? We haven't given everything,
> so therefore we've given nothing?
>
> I'm sorry, but I just don't get it. Not in the least bit.
>
> -ian
--
Tim Foster, Sun Microsystems Inc, Solaris Engineering Ops
http://blogs.sun.com/timf
_______________________________________________
trademark-policy-dev mailing list
trademark-policy-dev at opensolaris dot org
http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/trademark-policy-dev
|
|
|
|
|
Posts:
3,398
From:
Registered:
3/9/05
|
|
|
|
Re: [advocacy-discuss] [indiana-discuss] I'm
sorry, but I just don't get it
Posted:
Nov 2, 2007 11:23 AM
in response to: timf
|
|
>+1 This says it all for me. I'm also getting pretty sick of the rather
>negative atmosphere around the mailing lists at the moment.
>
>We just shipped a major milestone, and people are doing nothing but
>bitching about it. I'm glad the responsible project team are a pretty
>thick skinned bunch, because I'd be feeling rather unappreciated if I
>were them, based on many of these mails... (perhaps they're all still
>recovering from the party)
>
>Can we please start feeling proud of our achievements ? Please ? Beers
>all round!
Sticking your head in the and and ignoring the criticism about the *name*
and not the achievement is nothing to be proud of.
What the project team achieved is irrelevant to the discussion.
Mentioning how great it is and how much work it was is also irrelevant.
I'm not going to play "international politics"[1] with this.
There is only one issue and that is the name. Drumming up the Indiana
release' fanboys is getting us nowhere.
Casper
[1] Making the support of resolutions condemning what X did to Y
conditional on saying that "Y" isn't altogether nice also.
_______________________________________________
trademark-policy-dev mailing list
trademark-policy-dev at opensolaris dot org
http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/trademark-policy-dev
|
|
|
|
|
Posts:
5
From:
Bay Area, California
Registered:
5/27/06
|
|
|
|
Re: [indiana-discuss] I'm sorry,
but I just don't get it
Posted:
Nov 2, 2007 12:10 PM
in response to: timf
|
|
Thank you both for your comments.
Specifically for the eyes and ears of all of the folks on the
OpenSolaris software team, I can't thank you enough for the outstanding
work you've done to date on this program. The creativity, speed and
focus you've all demonstrated is visible to all - and is worthy of
unyielding respect. You certainly have mine.
Thanks,
Rich
Tim Foster wrote:
> +1 This says it all for me. I'm also getting pretty sick of the rather
> negative atmosphere around the mailing lists at the moment.
>
> We just shipped a major milestone, and people are doing nothing but
> bitching about it. I'm glad the responsible project team are a pretty
> thick skinned bunch, because I'd be feeling rather unappreciated if I
> were them, based on many of these mails... (perhaps they're all still
> recovering from the party)
>
> Can we please start feeling proud of our achievements ? Please ? Beers
> all round!
>
> cheers,
> tim
>
>
> On Fri, 2007-11-02 at 13:16 -0400, Ian Murdock wrote:
>
>> All right.
>>
>> I don't even know where to begin.
>>
>> Does it matter at all that the feedback outside this community to
>> the idea that we're producing a binary distribution called
>> OpenSolaris has almost universally been: "Duh. What took so long?"
>>
>> Does it matter that the initial feedback on the Developer Preview
>> has been overwhelming positive, that so many more people in the
>> world are talking about OpenSolaris--that the approach is WORKING?
>>
>> Does it matter that we literally MOVED MOUNTAINS to get to where we
>> are today.. To create this community in the first place, to free the IP,
>> to reprioritize, to get the vast resources Sun dedicates to Solaris
>> focused on doing their work in the open, to evangelize within the
>> company the importance of continuing to open up such that those outside
>> of Sun can participate in future development on an equal footing?
>>
>> Does it matter that we are inviting the community to participate
>> in a discussion about how to enable broader use of the OpenSolaris
>> brand, to build out a ecosystem of distributions that are compatible,
>> to solve the Linux fragmentation problem before it even becomes
>> a problem? What other company has done this? Shouldn't we be applauded
>> for being willing to take this step--or is this just another
>> case of Sun being held to a much different standard than everyone else?
>>
>> And, yes, does it matter that Sun holds a large stake in this
>> community, PAYS the vast majority of people here for the privilege of
>> being able to spend their days doing what they love, gets flamed
>> repeatedly by many of those same people for our trouble, and in return
>> thinks it reasonable to have _some_ say in how the community functions?
>> Or is that a sign of evil intentions? Do we have to completely
>> abdicate to "be community"? Isn't that taxation without representation?
>>
>> Or is all that insignificant, irrelevant? We haven't given everything,
>> so therefore we've given nothing?
>>
>> I'm sorry, but I just don't get it. Not in the least bit.
>>
>> -ian
>>
_______________________________________________
trademark-policy-dev mailing list
trademark-policy-dev at opensolaris dot org
http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/trademark-policy-dev
|
|
|
|
|
Posts:
227
From:
US
Registered:
7/6/05
|
|
|
|
Re: [ogb-discuss] I'm sorry,
but I just don't get it
Posted:
Nov 2, 2007 10:50 AM
in response to: Ian Murdock
|
|
Ian Murdock wrote:
> I'm sorry, but I just don't get it. Not in the least bit.
>
> -ian
>
I am with Ian here, I just don't get it either. While I really can't
say I really agree 100 % with what was done I just don't get the
responses and how this whole thing has blown up into yet another flame
fest that bombs are inboxes. I have been involved with "OpenSolaris" for
a couple of years now and I now I am really starting to question why.
If the last big war about GPL wasn't bad enough.
What we really need in this community is real leadership if we are going
to survive. At least Ian's sticking his neck out doing something that
has potential rather than just arguing about it ad nauseam so I'll stand
by him and the decsions. Personally I'd rather follow someone that
does something and might make a mistake or two rather than someone who
can make a decision on anything.
Bill
rushmores.net
_______________________________________________
trademark-policy-dev mailing list
trademark-policy-dev at opensolaris dot org
http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/trademark-policy-dev
|
|
|
|
|
Posts:
1,320
From:
US
Registered:
4/27/05
|
|
|
|
Re: [ogb-discuss] I'm sorry,
but I just don't get it
Posted:
Nov 2, 2007 10:50 AM
in response to: Ian Murdock
|
|
Very simply Ian, I think a lot of people agree that the *end* result (a
binary downloadable called OpenSolaris) is probably a good thing.
What the community is objecting to is *how* we got there. Sun (or your
team) unilaterally decided to apply the brand, without really consulting
the community. A lot of people are feeling disenfranchised as a result.
-- Garrett
Ian Murdock wrote:
> All right.
>
> I don't even know where to begin.
>
> Does it matter at all that the feedback outside this community to
> the idea that we're producing a binary distribution called
> OpenSolaris has almost universally been: "Duh. What took so long?"
>
> Does it matter that the initial feedback on the Developer Preview
> has been overwhelming positive, that so many more people in the
> world are talking about OpenSolaris--that the approach is WORKING?
>
> Does it matter that we literally MOVED MOUNTAINS to get to where we
> are today.. To create this community in the first place, to free the IP,
> to reprioritize, to get the vast resources Sun dedicates to Solaris
> focused on doing their work in the open, to evangelize within the
> company the importance of continuing to open up such that those outside
> of Sun can participate in future development on an equal footing?
>
> Does it matter that we are inviting the community to participate
> in a discussion about how to enable broader use of the OpenSolaris
> brand, to build out a ecosystem of distributions that are compatible,
> to solve the Linux fragmentation problem before it even becomes
> a problem? What other company has done this? Shouldn't we be applauded
> for being willing to take this step--or is this just another
> case of Sun being held to a much different standard than everyone else?
>
> And, yes, does it matter that Sun holds a large stake in this
> community, PAYS the vast majority of people here for the privilege of
> being able to spend their days doing what they love, gets flamed
> repeatedly by many of those same people for our trouble, and in return
> thinks it reasonable to have _some_ say in how the community functions?
> Or is that a sign of evil intentions? Do we have to completely
> abdicate to "be community"? Isn't that taxation without representation?
>
> Or is all that insignificant, irrelevant? We haven't given everything,
> so therefore we've given nothing?
>
> I'm sorry, but I just don't get it. Not in the least bit.
>
> -ian
>
_______________________________________________
trademark-policy-dev mailing list
trademark-policy-dev at opensolaris dot org
http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/trademark-policy-dev
|
|
|
|
|
Posts:
416
From:
Registered:
4/27/05
|
|
|
|
Re: [advocacy-discuss] I'm sorry,
but I just don't get it
Posted:
Nov 2, 2007 10:56 AM
in response to: Ian Murdock
|
|
Hi Ian,
I have been (quietly) so far following this long discussion and may as
well put in
my 2 cents (several other people have contributed a lot more).
I would rather download and install something called "Sun OpenSolaris"
than "OpenSolaris".
I trust Sun to have gone through all the testing needed to ensure a
working system, and I expect
Sun's version to be the best of the current technology. I also
understand that if there is
a distribution called simply OpenSolaris, many people will not bother
looking at other
distributions. If I was trying to get into the RedHat (or pick your
favorite Linux distribution), I
would be very upset with the name "OpenSolaris". It's only a naming
issue (and, I guess, the way
the name was chosen), that people are upset about. So, why not qualify
the name by showing its roots
(i.e, Sun)? I'm sorry, maybe I just don't get it... Maybe this
argument is about something else
entirely?
max
Ian Murdock wrote:
> All right.
>
> I don't even know where to begin.
>
> Does it matter at all that the feedback outside this community to
> the idea that we're producing a binary distribution called
> OpenSolaris has almost universally been: "Duh. What took so long?"
>
> Does it matter that the initial feedback on the Developer Preview
> has been overwhelming positive, that so many more people in the
> world are talking about OpenSolaris--that the approach is WORKING?
>
> Does it matter that we literally MOVED MOUNTAINS to get to where we
> are today.. To create this community in the first place, to free the IP,
> to reprioritize, to get the vast resources Sun dedicates to Solaris
> focused on doing their work in the open, to evangelize within the
> company the importance of continuing to open up such that those outside
> of Sun can participate in future development on an equal footing?
>
> Does it matter that we are inviting the community to participate
> in a discussion about how to enable broader use of the OpenSolaris
> brand, to build out a ecosystem of distributions that are compatible,
> to solve the Linux fragmentation problem before it even becomes
> a problem? What other company has done this? Shouldn't we be applauded
> for being willing to take this step--or is this just another
> case of Sun being held to a much different standard than everyone else?
>
> And, yes, does it matter that Sun holds a large stake in this
> community, PAYS the vast majority of people here for the privilege of
> being able to spend their days doing what they love, gets flamed
> repeatedly by many of those same people for our trouble, and in return
> thinks it reasonable to have _some_ say in how the community functions?
> Or is that a sign of evil intentions? Do we have to completely
> abdicate to "be community"? Isn't that taxation without representation?
>
> Or is all that insignificant, irrelevant? We haven't given everything,
> so therefore we've given nothing?
>
> I'm sorry, but I just don't get it. Not in the least bit.
>
> -ian
>
_______________________________________________
trademark-policy-dev mailing list
trademark-policy-dev at opensolaris dot org
http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/trademark-policy-dev
|
|
|
|
|
Posts:
5,504
From:
US
Registered:
3/9/05
|
|
|
|
Re: [ogb-discuss] I'm sorry,
but I just don't get it
Posted:
Nov 2, 2007 11:28 AM
in response to: Ian Murdock
|
|
Ian Murdock wrote:
> All right.
>
> I don't even know where to begin.
I don't think anyone disputes that there is a lot of good being
overshadowed by a few small decisions that have large impact.
I just don't get why it would have been so bad for the binaries
shipped this week to be labeled as "Project Indiana Developer
Preview", and then wait a few weeks to let the trademark/branding
guideline project finish their guidelines and to let the community
try out Project Indiana first. You would have most likely gotten
to the same endpoint of releasing a binary distro named OpenSolaris
in March, but without appearing to be heavily handed in dictating these
decisions, alienating members of the community, and filling our mailboxes
to overflowing. (Just imagine the cost to Sun of all the bandwidth
and storage being wasted by this unnecessary flamefest.)
> Does it matter that we are inviting the community to participate
> in a discussion about how to enable broader use of the OpenSolaris
> brand, to build out a ecosystem of distributions that are compatible,
> to solve the Linux fragmentation problem before it even becomes
> a problem? What other company has done this? Shouldn't we be applauded
> for being willing to take this step--or is this just another
> case of Sun being held to a much different standard than everyone else?
No, it doesn't matter if you're inviting the community to participate
in a discussion, and then unilaterally declare the decision made by
Sun, before the community has finished reaching a decision on those
guidelines. Was the community process going so slowly after only a
couple of weeks that it was necessary to short-circuit it?
If Sun was being held to the same standard as everyone else, we'd be
removing Project Indiana binaries from the website right now for misuse
of the trademark outside the established guidelines published on
OpenSolaris.org.
> Or is all that insignificant, irrelevant? We haven't given everything,
> so therefore we've given nothing?
Maybe you should go have a long talk with Sun's Chief Open Source Officer,
who explained to many of Sun's engineers working on open source projects
a few weeks ago the highly non-rational, but repeatedly proven rule of
dealing with open source communities:
Control and influence are inversely proportional.
The more control you try to take, even over things like the name that you
may consider less significant, the less influence you will have with the
members of the community.
--
-Alan Coopersmith- alan dot coopersmith at sun dot com
Sun Microsystems, Inc. - X Window System Engineering
_______________________________________________
trademark-policy-dev mailing list
trademark-policy-dev at opensolaris dot org
http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/trademark-policy-dev
|
|
|
|
|
Posts:
76
From:
Indianapolis Indiana
Registered:
12/20/06
|
|
|
|
Re: [advocacy-discuss] I'm sorry,
but I just don't get it
Posted:
Nov 2, 2007 11:33 AM
in response to: Ian Murdock
|
|
> those same people for our trouble, and in return thinks it reasonable to
> have _some_ say in how the community functions? Or is that a sign of
> evil intentions? Do we have to completely abdicate to "be community"?
> Isn't that taxation without representation?
>
> Or is all that insignificant, irrelevant? We haven't given everything,
> so therefore we've given nothing?
>
> I'm sorry, but I just don't get it. Not in the least bit.
The community needs *much* more time to come to consensus and develop
opinions re: ongoing trademark policy.
Maybe 3-4x what has been available thus far?
--e
_______________________________________________
trademark-policy-dev mailing list
trademark-policy-dev at opensolaris dot org
http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/trademark-policy-dev
|
|
|
|
|
Posts:
689
From:
GB
Registered:
5/18/05
|
|
|
|
Re: [osol-discuss] [advocacy-discuss] I'm
sorry, but I just don't get it
Posted:
Nov 3, 2007 9:25 AM
in response to: elijah
|
|
[dropping a load of lists]
On Nov 2, 2007, at 18:33, elw at stderr dot org wrote:
> The community needs *much* more time to come to consensus and develop
> opinions re: ongoing trademark policy.
>
> Maybe 3-4x what has been available thus far?
I completely agree with this. But then, I was accused of "delay
tactics" when I said it :-)
S.
_______________________________________________
trademark-policy-dev mailing list
trademark-policy-dev at opensolaris dot org
http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/trademark-policy-dev
|
|
|
|
|
Posts:
1,218
From:
Registered:
3/9/05
|
|
|
|
Re: [osol-discuss] I'm sorry,
but I just don't get it
Posted:
Nov 2, 2007 11:36 AM
in response to: Ian Murdock
|
|
Ian Murdock wrote:
> Does it matter at all that the feedback outside this community to
> the idea that we're producing a binary distribution called
> OpenSolaris has almost universally been: "Duh. What took so long?"
>
> Does it matter that the initial feedback on the Developer Preview
> has been overwhelming positive, that so many more people in the
> world are talking about OpenSolaris--that the approach is WORKING?
>
> Does it matter that we literally MOVED MOUNTAINS to get to where we
> are today.. To create this community in the first place, to free the IP,
> to reprioritize, to get the vast resources Sun dedicates to Solaris
> focused on doing their work in the open, to evangelize within the
> company the importance of continuing to open up such that those outside
> of Sun can participate in future development on an equal footing?
>
> Does it matter that we are inviting the community to participate
> in a discussion about how to enable broader use of the OpenSolaris
> brand, to build out a ecosystem of distributions that are compatible,
> to solve the Linux fragmentation problem before it even becomes
> a problem? What other company has done this? Shouldn't we be applauded
> for being willing to take this step--or is this just another
> case of Sun being held to a much different standard than everyone else?
I'm not clear what you are saying here - which parts of the above
paragraphs are about Indiana, and which are about the OpenSolaris
community? OpenSolaris is more than just Indiana, and most of the
things you refer to were happening before your arrival. I guess you may
have no idea who I am, but I started working on OpenSolaris over 4 years
ago, in fact I believe I was the first Sun employee to start on
full-time on the project. I therefore think I've got a reasonably
accurate view of the historical context.
As for holding people to standards, all I've seen is the not entirely
unreasonable request that Sun continue to deliver the commitments to
openness and transparency that it made when OpenSolaris was started.
> And, yes, does it matter that Sun holds a large stake in this
> community, PAYS the vast majority of people here for the privilege of
> being able to spend their days doing what they love, gets flamed
> repeatedly by many of those same people for our trouble, and in return
> thinks it reasonable to have _some_ say in how the community functions?
> Or is that a sign of evil intentions? Do we have to completely
> abdicate to "be community"? Isn't that taxation without representation?
>
> Or is all that insignificant, irrelevant? We haven't given everything,
> so therefore we've given nothing?
Again, I'm not at all clear why you have that impression. Nobody is
saying that you shouldn't have a voice, what they are asking is that you
use the mechanisms and channels we have in place for such discussions to
take place. I think it is important to see the dispute in context. I
haven't seen anyone say that they think Indiana is an evil idea (in fact
quite the opposite), what they have been annoyed at is that decisions
that affect the community were apparently taken without involving the
community.
The dispute is about one area of the project as a whole. I know that it
is one that is close to your heart, but please let's not let this one
issue result in the trashing of the entire opensolaris 'idea'. After
all, we, Sun chose to go down this route in the first place, it is we
who must take the responsibility of delivering on what we committed to.
> I'm sorry, but I just don't get it. Not in the least bit.
That, at least, seems clear.
--
Alan Burlison
--
_______________________________________________
trademark-policy-dev mailing list
trademark-policy-dev at opensolaris dot org
http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/trademark-policy-dev
|
|
|
|
|
Stephen Lau
stevel@opensolaris.org
|
|
|
|
Re: [indiana-discuss] I'm sorry,
but I just don't get it
Posted:
Nov 3, 2007 2:42 PM
in response to: Ian Murdock
|
|
No, to all of those things. None of our objections are with any of your
points; in fact all your points are valid and true - and all the
engineering, and marketing teams involved in Indiana should be applauded
for their efforts.
Our *only* point of contention is that your announcement of Indiana, and
the naming of Indiana as OpenSolaris implies the community has endorsed
Indiana as the one true binary distribution of OpenSolaris, and that is
in fact - not true.
So here's my point:
Does it matter if a "community-developed" (Indiana's words, not mine)
distribution uses the community's name and blessing when in fact the
community hasn't given it?
I think it does. Hope that helps clarify the point of contention.
cheers,
steve
Ian Murdock wrote:
> All right.
>
> I don't even know where to begin.
>
> Does it matter at all that the feedback outside this community to
> the idea that we're producing a binary distribution called
> OpenSolaris has almost universally been: "Duh. What took so long?"
>
> Does it matter that the initial feedback on the Developer Preview
> has been overwhelming positive, that so many more people in the
> world are talking about OpenSolaris--that the approach is WORKING?
>
> Does it matter that we literally MOVED MOUNTAINS to get to where we
> are today.. To create this community in the first place, to free the IP,
> to reprioritize, to get the vast resources Sun dedicates to Solaris
> focused on doing their work in the open, to evangelize within the
> company the importance of continuing to open up such that those outside
> of Sun can participate in future development on an equal footing?
>
> Does it matter that we are inviting the community to participate
> in a discussion about how to enable broader use of the OpenSolaris
> brand, to build out a ecosystem of distributions that are compatible,
> to solve the Linux fragmentation problem before it even becomes
> a problem? What other company has done this? Shouldn't we be applauded
> for being willing to take this step--or is this just another
> case of Sun being held to a much different standard than everyone else?
>
> And, yes, does it matter that Sun holds a large stake in this
> community, PAYS the vast majority of people here for the privilege of
> being able to spend their days doing what they love, gets flamed
> repeatedly by many of those same people for our trouble, and in return
> thinks it reasonable to have _some_ say in how the community functions?
> Or is that a sign of evil intentions? Do we have to completely
> abdicate to "be community"? Isn't that taxation without representation?
>
> Or is all that insignificant, irrelevant? We haven't given everything,
> so therefore we've given nothing?
>
> I'm sorry, but I just don't get it. Not in the least bit.
>
> -ian
>
--
stephen lau | stevel at opensolaris dot org | www.whacked.net
_______________________________________________
trademark-policy-dev mailing list
trademark-policy-dev at opensolaris dot org
http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/trademark-policy-dev
|
|
|
|
|
