Octave Orgeron wrote: > Hi Everyone, > > This does bring up some interesting topics. While I agree it's important for > Sun to protect it's IP during the development phase, the side effect is that > there can be a disconnect when a new technology is released into the > OpenSolaris community. Indiana for example was a huge undertaking and caused > a lot of head *turning*. It would appear to me that this kind of a situation > causes conflict because the community was not involved in the decisions or > the design. So how can we fix this process and prevent such *surprises*? > > Well, I think the best place to start is to have the community drive the > roadmap for OpenSolaris. This means that we as a community come together, > discuss the design choices, and make the decisions. Sun should be involved, > since they have a vested interest in maintaining compatibility, which I > believe is critical for the success of both Solaris and any OpenSolaris > distros. However, the driving force should be the community. So the question > is how do we protect Sun's IP during the design phase of a new technology or > feature, before it's open sourced? And, how do we as a community ensure that > such releases do not negatively affect current community efforts? I think the > answer is that we need the following: > > 1. Define what makes components are part of OpenSolaris. This could be an > academic exercise in looking at what's already open sourced and what will not > be open sourced (CDE for example). > 2. Define an OpenSolaris standard that all distros must comply to for > OpenSolaris branding or to have the right to say "Based on OpenSolaris" or > "OpenSolaris Compliant". > 3. Define a Roadmap for OpenSolaris. This would involve figuring out when > projects will be reviewed and integrated. This also means that Sun would have > to atleast present what the impact of a new technology would be and outline > any proposed changes to the OpenSolaris standard. The community would then > have a say in if it makes sense or not. > 4. Have an open process for reviewing and approving items for integration. > This means that Sun and the community come together and make decisions based > on an agreed foundation of principles. > > This might be idealistic, but I think it could move things in the right > direction. If we did something like Indiana via voting from the community, it would be competing with Window 2020, and the agreed items would fit on a floppy. Why do you have to state "Sun should be involved"? Not only should they be involved, but until contributions from the community matches their's, I think people should realise that not only do they have a vested interest, but will in the end they have greatest say.
Doug
