* John Plocher <John.Plocher at Sun.COM> [2008-05-15 15:56]: > Stephen Hahn wrote: > > (A project can have multiple repositories and multiple mailing lists, > > so I'm not sure why one would need a meta-project or a CG to coordinate > > multiple efforts.) > > > Logistically, how do you see this work? (I have my own > thoughts, put forth below) > > For context: > Presume we have a bunch of existing PM-related projects, > and each has their own mailing lists > > The ON CG has its own mailing list(s), as does Storage, > Clusters and Laptop... > > There is no functional overlap between any of these > aliases, though some individuals may be subscribed to > multiple aliases. > > Each of the Projects could certainly create more aliases, > but who would be subscribed to them? Where would you hold > a discussion about a topic that involved all these players? > > As things sit today, the only "solution" is for everyone to > subscribe to everyone else's aliases - which isn't happening. Actually, I think one of the key adjustments people need to make is that, to make their project/effort successful (or at least known), they must go out and announce it on one or more of these aliases. That's why scm-migration makes announcements every so often on tools-discuss, for instance. So I would expect a Power Mgmt effort to announce new documents, reviews, etc. on the CG aliases you mentioned.
One possibility is to have a feed regarding design reviews, much like http://cr.opensolaris.org/feed.xml does for code reviews. opensolaris-code has a chance of being a community-wide technical list, if it keeps its focus. > When Randy and I talked about this CG proposal, I suggested > that it made more sense for it to be a SIG, but that we (OGB, > OS.o, webapp, ...) hadn't yet invented SIGs.... (bummer :-) > > In my mind, a SIG is more than simply a mailing list - it is > a sub/umbrella community that shares an interest in a particular > area, but doesn't have the attribute that it (as an entity) is > actually "doing" that thing. > > Thus, a PM SIG would be a place for everyone who is interested > in Power Management to congregate, discuss and plan, even if > the various individuals were actually doing their work in the > ON, Appliance, Storage, Clusters and Laptop CGs. As a SIG, it > would have a presence on OS.o so it could publish roadmaps, > best practices, whitepapers, and whatever else it needed to > do to make Power Management work well across all the OS.o > efforts. I'm fine with this approach, although since SIGs don't issue grants, they are effectively some kind of globally blessed project. (Right?) What happens when two sets of people want to run a SIG? How do we handle SIG end-of-relevance? - Stephen -- sch at sun.com http://blogs.sun.com/sch/
