On 02/11/2007, Justin Erenkrantz <justin at erenkrantz.com> wrote: > On Nov 2, 2007 2:11 PM, Shawn Walker <swalker at opensolaris.org> wrote: > > Then were are going to get nowhere fast; the constitution must be changed. > > > > Projects must be free to release early and often with prototypes. > > > > Prototypes by their very nature should be free of architectural > > commitments and a breeding ground for new ideas. > > It's really not that hard to get 3 +1s on a public mailing list even > if you want to label it a prototype. IMO, if the 'release' has the > OpenSolaris name, then it should be publicly voted on. You should be > free to individually release "ShawnSource" or whatever, but acting on > your own (or in a dark corner away from the community) doesn't give > you the right to call it "OpenSolaris". -- justin >
My my main point of contention was that implication that a release requires architectural commitments even for a prototype. A simple requirement of three +1's from core contributors seems reasonable given that the work released is supposed to represent a project. If projects have much more than that tying their hands, we're going nowhere fast. -- Shawn Walker, Software and Systems Analyst http://binarycrusader.blogspot.com/ "We don't have enough parallel universes to allow all uses of all junction types--in the absence of quantum computing the combinatorics are not in our favor..." --Larry Wall
