Joseph, I mixed together a bunch of your emails, and answer the points below.
> Also, remember, this is now OpenSolaris, so even Freeware is ambiguous. Agreed. (Freeware is out for a couple reasons. Mainly because Freeware isn't open source. The most confusing thing about our situation is that, normally a distribution, like Fedora, doesn't really write most of their code. They are basically integrators, taking pieces from a variety of other sources. OpenSolaris.org on the other hand, primarily develops the pieces, with integration almost being either an unspoken given, or an after thought. Eventually, I would like to see OpenSolaris ship two distributions. 1) OpenSolaris Enterprise Edition, and 2) OpenSolaris Community Edition. Inititially these two distros, will probably be identical. (They may even be further broken into server/desktop, but I think that would best be an install option) > I don't have a good name suggestion. Sorry 'bout that. I think what we are talking about is either, "integration", "packaging", "bundling" or "distrib". (Or something similar along those lines) I think "packaging" is my first choice. > Merging the communities is an ARC-free move - just do it. Ok, I'll talk to Eric B. about setting up a new mailing list, once we agree on the name. > > 7) Sun should start giving credit to contributors. (Ian) > Its been discussed a lot already and is really a separate issue. You've > got enough > here that it really should be kept separate. > > However, it is an issue (which may have stalled). Start with Simmon on > this one. > > Actually, I wonder if this is Sun's to decide. I *think* its something > in the CAB approved development ruleset. I suspect the CAB can > revise it. (The whole idea was for Sun to put a stake in the ground, > not that the stake couldn't be moved.) Agree that this is a separate issue. Could someone who is knows someone at SuSE, RedHat or Ubuntu please reach out and see how they handle it. You are right it is a Sun issue, but that doesn't mean OpenSolaris can't set it's own standard. Finally, I think that the contributor agreement, should have a section regarding wether or not, and how, one wants to be acknowledged. (Maybe someone want sto be anonymous.) >> - When appropriate blastwave maintainers will also maintain SFW >> - Blastwave will continue to maintain unstable S11 packages >Nit: last two bullets could be less ambiguous. Ok. How about?: - Leverage the experience of the Blastwave package maintains. They are already familiar with the packages, package authors, and stability. They would be natural candidates for maintaining stable OpenSolaris packages. - The S11 branch of blastwave will follow the OpenSolaris pathing and packaging standards such that the full blastwave tree could be considered the unstable repository/branch of the OpenSolaris distribution. > With this many inclusions, I don't even know who I'm responding to, but > why is the goal "to be integrated into OpenSolaris". Is everything FOSS > integrated into Red Hat, SuSE or Windows? No. As you mentioned early OpenSolaris is FOSS, and is not integrated into Linux. (Also forget Windows, it's irrelevant to this discussion, as most FOSS software is ported to MS as an afterthought.) Being less literal, a large majority of open source software targets Linux, so the integration is for the most part trivial. (Also when we say integration, we are in fact referring to making "universe" as large as possible. > > 9) Woo upstream developers and maintainers, to join the cause. This of > > course would be limited to smaller projects. (Once we have a coherent > > procedure and policy in place.) (Brian) > Why "of course limited to smaller projects"? I simply don't understand. rpm is supported on *ALL* Linux distros. Therefore, RPMs are the natural choice for distribution. I say smaller packages, because they are generally maintained by one person. They are also more prone to see more widespread adoption of their packages. > WHO builds the packages? OpenSolaris participants. > WHO distributes the packages? OpenSolaris.org. If Sun chooses to follow out network based distribution method, then Sun would also. > WHO supports the packages? It really depends on what you mean by support. If by support you mean apply patches and what not. That would be the package maintainers. If instead by support you mean, who deals with end user "problems". A mailing list should be setup. (Or forum.) If it is determined that it is a usage issue, not an OpenSolaris specific issue, the user will be forwarded to the appropriate user community discusion. (e.g - vim at vim.org for vim) If on the other hand you are referring to how Sun should handle support for Solaris, it will be a multitiered approach. For packages that are deemed to be stable/supported, Sun will support it. (This may have the support tech reaching out to the open solaris lists.) In all other cases sun support will forward the user to the new OpenSolaris discussion forum. Of course this would open the door for some enterpriseing individual, group or company to offer commercial support for the unstable universe. > > Please note: I put my name in a few places. If anyone wants to grab that > > slot, or join me, that is ideal. > Don't be surprised if you don't have a bunch of Sun folk signing up for > a couple of days. We have that small issue of getting an OK from our > managers. > (Not a huge thing, immediate manager almost always sufficient.) Awesome!! Cheers, Brian P.S. - Please let me know if we still have some issues to address.
