Wow, the list has just exploded today - serves me right for picking today to do mail server maintenance!
To address everyone that has been quite active, I agree with most of the opinions expressed. I would however like to request one thing. I am working on finishing up a requirements document for the 'ports' collection. The be honest, I do not think this can really be considered just a ports project at this point any longer - the scope is a bit broader. What I would like to see happen is to put something out there everyone can view and weigh in on. I would much rather have a starting point for us to move towards rather than just tossing out ideas. What I have put together so far is what I hope is a best of breed of several similar projects (including blastwave, pkgbuild, and others). Thoughts? Steve On 5/4/07, Brian Gupta <brian.gupta at gmail.com> wrote: > > > Let's stick with hardware that is as real as real gets to avoid the > > possibility of any package being released that has not ever been > > actually tested on the real thing. > > OK > > > There must be standards compliance and of course I agree with the > > enforcement of these standards. That is a non-issue. The > > specification of those stanards would be a community effort and we > > need input from many places and *that* process will be non-trivial. We > > may even need a new mail list. At the very least we can always use > > the mailist server at Blastwave at users at lists.blastwave.org if need > > be. See : > > > > https://lists.blastwave.org/mailman/listinfo/users > > No, not a separate list. The GNU, SFW, CCD communities need to merge, > and this discussion needs to happen there. Everyone needs to be > involved. > > > What is your influence in that regard ? > > Just as much as any interested third party, who has a strong desire to > make this work, and the tenacity to not let it drop. (Annoying I know, > but isn't that what Open-Source is all about?) > > > > Perhaps. ;) But first we *all* need to come to a common vision. > > > > OKay ... let's write a mission statement and then go from there > perhaps. > > No point in writing a mission statement if everyone isn't on board. > > > Necessity dictates that I do both every day. > > > > > You efforts will be needed to set standards, > > > represent your community, and coodinate blastwave's efforts within the > > > OpenSolaris ecosystem. You have a good team in place, delegate. Only > > > step in when their is no-one else that can do what needs to be done. > > > (Realize that alot of decision making will be made jointly with the > > > OpenSolaris community.) > > > > One does not delegate to a community volunteer. One meets halfway > > and then possibly further also. This is where being a worker bee is a > > necessity. No one in the "team" gets paid to do this and there is no > > throat to choke. > > Well, aren't you a community "volunteer" as well? As far as I know, > you don't work for Sun, do you? > > > > One thing I think Sun desparately needs to address, is crediting third > > > party contributors within Solaris itself. When it was just Sun doing > > > the development, it was "works for hire", so no credit needed to be > > > given. Now with unpaid volunteers joining the mix, Sun has to give > > > credit where credit is due. (Maybe in the man pages? And.or the docs.) > > > > That is a Sun Microsystems Inc. issue and not an OpenSolaris.orgissue. > > Hmm, I don't agree. If things are fed into Express with credits, Sun > will have to make an active decision to remove them. Doing so has the > potential to upset the volunteer community, and would probably go a > long way to preventing growth of that selfsame community. > > > > > As for community software, in order for the massive pile of CSW > > > > software to be integrated into Solaris or OpenSolaris we need to > close > > > > ranks a bit and stop bickering with each other. > > > > > > Can we agree, that Blastwave needs to be a bit more disciplined and > > > patient in their approach towards getting packages into OpenSolaris? > > > > OKay. I think that patience has been demonstrated and can continue. > > I meant patience with the speed of the OpenSolaris proposal process, > and patience with team members that are making sure that the stable > legacy of Solaris is upheld. > > > That again means we need to separate the Sun Microsystems Inc. > > concerns and the OpenSolaris community concerns. There needs to be a > > clear understanding that I am a "community" guy and always have been. > > The hard fact is that Sun Microsystems Inc, her customers and VARs and > > ISVs have benefitted greatly from the work done. > > I would like to think the goals of OpenSolaris and Sun are in > allignment no? (In addition to Solaris being the most advanced > operating system on the planet, but to make it the most useful) Am I > mistaken? "Community guy"? Why would anyone think otherwise? Please > explain what you mean by this. I am confused. > > > > At this point I think everyone needs to commit to work together. If > > > you are reading this, you should respond, either commit, or say that > > > they will not commit. No abstains. Yeah or Nay. > > > > YAY > > +1 (Can I do this to my own proposal? I guess it's like putting a buck > in your tip jar to get the money flowing.) > > > > If we can quickly reach agreement, I will draft a project proposal for > > > review. We are desperately short of time. Informed decisions need to > > > be made quickly. (Oxymoron I know.) ;) > > > > YAY to that also. > > +1 > _______________________________________________ > ports-discuss mailing list > ports-discuss at opensolaris.org > http://opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/ports-discuss > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://mail.opensolaris.org/pipermail/companion-discuss/attachments/20070504/31d6c93b/attachment.html>
