From owner-freebsd-chat Fri May 4 14:11: 4 2001 Delivered-To: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org Received: from dnull.com (dnull.com [209.133.53.79]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2D86037B423 for ; Fri, 4 May 2001 14:10:58 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from jessem@jigsaw.svbug.com) Received: from jigsaw.svbug.com ([198.79.110.2]) by dnull.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id OAA24588; Fri, 4 May 2001 14:10:51 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <200105042110.OAA24588@dnull.com> Date: Fri, 4 May 2001 14:10:10 -0700 (PDT) From: jessem@livecam.com Reply-To: jessemonroy@email.com Subject: Re: Concern over ftp.freebsd.org To: jkh@osd.bsdi.com Cc: tlambert@primenet.com, jessemonroy@email.com, chat@FreeBSD.ORG In-Reply-To: <20010504003330A.jkh@osd.bsdi.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/plain; CHARSET=US-ASCII Sender: owner-freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.org On 4 May, Jordan Hubbard wrote: >> I think this is the crux of things; if you had communicated >> that information, that way, I think the outage itself would >> have been a tempest in a teacup, and widely ignored while > > Perhaps, though I also can't help but notice that none of this > occurred until *after* I posted something to announce. "Damned if you > do, damned if you don't" is a phrase which comes to mind. > I disagree. One of the points I've been trying to make this whole time is that FreeBSD has community support. There are plenty of businesses and people willing to help, if given an opportunity. However, when situation like this happen FreeBSD (et. al) go into heavy denial. Not just of the situation, but of need of assistance. Per, the announcement itself, I'm sure there would have been people to complain. Hell, I probababely(sp?) would be one of them. The bottom line, after last nights meeting is: most club members are willing to give all involved the benefit of the doubt. Most people are willing to wait to get the new RELEASE, even though 5 of 7 could not get it after trying all week. >>....[Trimming bunch of stuff]... >> >> The FreeBSD trademark is still controlled by someone other than >> the FreeBSD Foundation. I _did_ listen in on the conference call, >> but I didn't interrupt with a question about your justification >> for not transferring this to the foundation, sinceI didn't want > > Well, this is certainly something we also agreed to try and address > and nobody said it *wouldn't* be done, simply that it had to be done > carefully. I also never said that there would be no transfer, just > that it had to be transferred with a full and complete understanding > of what that entailed. > I think this is the issue: Saying, "nobody said it wouldn't be done". As we continue to grow FreeBSD, "not saying" things will come back to bite us again and again. This is not to say there are not situation in which one might see prudent reason for silence. In short, FreeBSD (et. al) needs to take this opportunity to regroup, define new directions, organize new methods, and with this new "Sugar Daddy" breakout of this stale mate. By statemate (sp?), I mean this circular issue of not communicating well. I know that in part resource bind FreeBSD to us certain channels and methods. This new resource (ie. WindRiver) needs to be exploited. As such, everyone must understand the benefits of Open Source and exactly why FreeBSD is good for their business. In essance, FreeBSD (et. al) has *not* done this. To that, we must expand the methods and means by which we communicate. I have done what I can (poor as that might be), it is up to you (et. al) to do the rest. I hope I've been clear. Best Regards, Jessem. To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message