Jim Grisanzio wrote:
> We seem to go back and forth between simple and complex
I'm hearing two different kinds of complexity here:
1) the complexity of having top level things and subsidiary things
(shepherds and sheep) -vs-
2) the complexity of having a chaotic, fluid mesh-related soup of things.
The key benefit in my mind of the former is that it organizes things
around the source trees that we are currently maintaining, while the
benefit of the latter is that it may allow a more natural expression
of relationships (is ZFS part of ON or the Storage Community or both?)
The direction I heard the board agree to in yesterday's meeting was to
draw a line around how we are doing things today (consolidations) and
to not invent something new (a mesh of peer projects). Please correct
me if I'm misunderstanding things (I'm still >1500 emails behind...)
Jim Grisanzio wrote:
> No need for
>> Consolidations since that's a Sun term, and we should just keep making
>> them Projects as they open (just ON at this point?)
James Carlson wrote:
> In the same way that a "User Group" is not well-represented as a
> "Project," a consolidation is also not reasonably a Project.
As I understand this topic, we started with the idea of several
different types of "top level groups" (SIGs, User Groups and
Consolidations all connected somehow to a cloud of Projects),
and along the way we considered several of alternatives, including
"nothing but a mesh of related Projects", but in the end, chose
to proceed down the path of drawing a line around our current
source trees (Admin, Install, Desktop, G11N, ON, SFW, NWS and
HACluster) and the development efforts going on to sustain
them.
This leaves me with two unknowns that I would like help
understanding:
Problem 1:
This seems to drop User Groups and SIGs on the floor. Simon (and
others?) seemed to feel that making SIGs a high level thing was
undesirable, but were unclear as to what is expected to happen to
the current CGs that are not Consolidations. There also seems to
be an assumption that something will happen to Advocacy and User
Groups, but I am unclear as to what exactly it should be. Jim?
Problem 2:
I'm not sure how the Cluster and Storage communities fit into our
new structure - they seem to be more "siblings of OpenSolaris" than
"children" or "parents"... As we build up our ecosystem and do
more and more with appliances and distros, does it make sense to
have a structure that allows us to naturally organize ourselves
around those activities? Or is this the role that SIGs would fill?
Alan Burlison wrote:
> All that is missing is a decision that what we have is sufficient
> and that I can get on and implement it.
Do you have a simple writeup of "what we have" that can be read
and approved? So much has been said in this set of threads that
I'm no longer sure what the spec rally is...
I *think* we are all on the same page, and that what you are
doing will be able to support the things we are discussing, but
it always pays to make sure before signing the check :-)
-John
