On Mon, Jul 14, 2008 at 9:00 PM, John Plocher <John.Plocher at sun.com> wrote: > Peter Tribble wrote: >> >> In particular, the notion that SIGs cannot begat projects is (or ought >> to be) false. > > Sounds like a reasonable point - can you provide some example use cases?
Well, I would expect the SMF SIG to generate projects improving SMF; I would expect the sysadmin SIG to generate projects enhancing sysadmin tools; and so on. >> Looking at the hierarchy, basing it around consolidations ... > > Why? This is an OpenSource effort. Organizing it around our various > source code producing groups seems to be no-brainer obvious :-) Hm. My world view has it that consolidations consume and organize code repositories. They don't decide what needs doing, or set priorities, or create new filesystems out of thin air. So yes you need consolidations, but they don't seem to provide leadership or innovation. (I could be wrong here, but consolidations seem like the necessary infrastructural glue.) >> ... to the exclusion of other entities seems wrong. > > I guess I don't see the exclusion here. There are/will be user group > and SIG type top level groups as well. Part of the effort is to determine > which ones are - and what makes them so. My complaint is that you're pushing them off to one side where I see them as central to the community as a whole. -- -Peter Tribble http://www.petertribble.co.uk/ - http://ptribble.blogspot.com/
