On Jan 16, 2008 1:12 PM, Keith M Wesolowski <keith.wesolowski at sun.com> wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 16, 2008 at 11:05:15AM -0800, Stephen Lau wrote:
>
> > I assume we want the the 14 day comment period before we meet for it... no?
>
> We don't really have a choice; the constitution requires such a
> comment period. There's a loophole that would allow us to create such
> a Group by "restructuring" an existing one, but I see no reason to
> employ such extraordinary machinations.
>
> Mr. Walker, please post a copy of your proposal here. We need a
> single consistent text for people to review and comment on. You could
> always edit your blog entry...
Mr. Wesolowski, I would like to apologise for any difficulty I may
have caused. I failed to satisfy all of the requirements for the
creation of a Community Group, so please bear with me as I seek to
rectify the situation.
This proposal, as it stands, also needs two additional nominations by
core contributors.
However, as requested, here is the text of the proposal:
----------------------------------------
Summary
==========
I believe the time is right and the need is great enough for the
creation of a Distribution Community Group.
Rationale
==========
My primary interest in the creation of this Community Group is a
result of my desire to create and maintain a distribution that:
* Is geared specifically towards ON community developers
* Maintains a branch of the main ON tree that integrates patches
from request-sponsor as they are posted; if they are suitable for
inclusion
* Provides a way for developers (such as myself) contributing to
ON to see and test the results of their fixes quickly and efficiently
* Is updated very frequently (weekly at least)
* Built using the distribution constructor, and thus is easily
customisable to meet the needs of other Community Groups
In addition, there are other reasons that I believe a new Community
Group should be created as well:
* Past events have shown that none of the existing community
groups are deemed wholly suitable for the community-wide impact that
distributions can have within the OpenSolaris community.
* None of the existing Community Groups are properly scoped for
the kind of decisions that need to be made in regard to distributions
and how they impact the OpenSolaris community.
* A Community Group is needed to take responsibility for the good
and bad actions of the related projects.
* The distribution constructor is quickly reaching maturity, and I
would like to encourage others creating distributions to participate
directly in the OpenSolaris community to avoid some of the past
problems that have arisen.
Proposal
==========
As such, I would like to propose that:
* A Distribution Community Group is created
* That Project Indiana be reassigned to this new community (with
their acceptance of course)
* That the OGB delegate decisions regarding distributions that are
not already delegated to other Community Groups to this new one (such
as managing the download page listing distributions perhaps?).
* That the following individuals be considered for the initial set
of core contributors with their acceptance:
o Shawn Walker (id: swalker) (taking responsibility for this
as the facilitator for the new group)
o Ken Mays (id: kmays)
o Eric Boutilier (id: ericb)
o Dennis Clarke (id: dclarke)
o David Comay (id: comay)
o Sara Dornsife (id: sarad)
o Glynn Foster (id: gman)
o Moinak Ghosh (id: moinakg)
o Stephen Hahn (id: sch)
o Dave Miner (id: dminer)
o Ian Murdock (id: imurdock)
o John Plocher (id: plocher)
o Joerg Schilling (id: joerg)
I would ask the OGB consider this proposal two weeks from today.
Thank you for your attention to this matter.
(For those of you that I did not list as the initial core
contributors, please don't take it as a slight. These are just the
names that came to my mind of people that I felt would participate and
not mind being asked to be part of a the new Distribution Community
Group.)
--
Shawn Walker
