Yup - and that middle-ground is the technology base on opensolaris.org. What Sun wants to do behind closed doors is Sun's business, and their right. The reason the OGB has a private list is to talk about potentially sensitive issues with third parties looking to get involved with OpenSolaris -- Sun being one of those third parties.
cheers, steve Octave Orgeron wrote: > Hi Doug, > > I don't think there is any question as to if Sun should be involved. I > clearly stated that they should be involved. I agree that Sun contributes > more code hands down, no doubt about it! But I also think that if Sun wants a > community around OpenSolaris, there has to be a middle ground where everyone > can work together. That's not to say things are completely broken and there > are people clamoring around with pitch forks and axes. There are areas that > just need improvement. > > *-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-* > Octave J. Orgeron > Solaris Systems Engineer > http://www.opensolaris.org/os/community/sysadmin/ > http://unixconsole.blogspot.com > unixconsole at yahoo.com > *-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-* > > ----- Original Message ---- > From: Doug Scott <dougs at truemail.co.th> > To: Octave Orgeron <unixconsole at yahoo.com> > Cc: MC <rac at eastlink.ca>; ogb-discuss at opensolaris.org > Sent: Sunday, January 27, 2008 9:49:56 AM > Subject: Re: [ogb-discuss] Ben's Agenda Items for Jan 23rd, 2008 > > > 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 > > > > > > > > ____________________________________________________________________________________ > Never miss a thing. Make Yahoo your home page. > http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs > _______________________________________________ > ogb-discuss mailing list > ogb-discuss at opensolaris.org > http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/ogb-discuss > -- stephen lau | stevel at opensolaris.org | www.whacked.net
