Keith M Wesolowski wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 20, 2007 at 09:15:20AM -0800, Garrett D'Amore wrote:
>
>
>> You're missing a very simple and obvious point though. Right now
>> whatever the community votes on, if you don't have CTeam approval (a Sun
>> entity), you won't get integrated. This is because Sun owns the code.
>>
>
> Huh? Copyright is completely irrelevant here. I don't even
> understand why you mention it. It's also not true; the code in
> question isn't owned by SMI at all, nor is all the code in ON.
>
Sorry, SMI owns the *access* to the teamware workspace. I misspoke,
obviously.
> SMI controls Solaris.
>
> OpenSolaris Community Groups control OpenSolaris.
>
> If SMI are happy with the decisions made by the OpenSolaris Community,
> they can take our output as-is. They certainly should be, given the
> enormous part their employees play in creating that output. But if
> they're not, they can do whatever they like with it, provided they
> comply with the license terms. They don't, however, get to override
> our rules or decisions with respect to OpenSolaris.
>
>
>> So, there are two conflicting policies here.
>>
>
> No. There is a policy for one thing and a potentially different
> policy for something else. We are only concerned with one of them.
>
Not true. We might only acknowledge one of them, but the policies that
are being followed by folks who control access to things we want to do
certainly impacts us, and it does concern us.
>
>> Until OpenSolaris has its own mercurial repo, it will be hard for votes
>> by community groups to integrate code into Nevada to carry any weight
>> when those votes are not aligned with Sun's interests.
>>
>
> No. That the existing Solaris C-Teams, acting as the Solaris C-Teams,
> affect OpenSolaris integration is a bug.
>
Yes.
> The allegation here seems to be that SMI is using back channels to
> impede progress. If true, how would that strategy succeed? People
> who hide in shadows by their very definition cannot influence a
> transparent, open process (if you're always in the sunlight, you can
> never be victimised by a vampire). So, follow the transparent, open
> process and see whether the evil shadowy figures alleged to be lurking
> will show themselves. If they do, engage with them, determine whether
> their interests can be accomodated within our framework, and move on.
> We win. If they don't show themselves, they don't exist or don't care
> about the outcome. Again, we win. The only way we can lose is to
> disregard our own rules, allowing confrontation and paralysing
> controversy to develop from nothing. SMI agreed in writing that it's
> in their interest that we follow our rules. If they don't believe
> that any longer, let them say so. Don't put words in their mouths or
> let them talk you out of following those rules yourself.
>
This is reasonable approach, and I agree.
> Please go help make the ARC and Device Drivers Groups make the right
> technical decisions for the right reasons. If the process fails, come
> back here and tell us about it.
>
OK. Well, its not in my hands right now, but as a CC for the device
drivers group I'll +1 this project. I'll even volunteer to sponsor the
fast-track at ARC if it needs one. I do want this project to succeed, I
just am not convinced it can overcome the hurdles. But I'm willing to
try my hand at this particular windmill. (It can be any worse than the
GLDv3 ce windmill, after all.)
-- Garrett
_______________________________________________
driver-discuss mailing list
driver-discuss@opensolaris.org
http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/driver-discuss
