On Wed, 2 May 2007, Nicolas Droux wrote: > > ... > What is the current process to get a new community > started? Should I go with what is described in the communities page, or is a > new process required now that the constitution has been approved. > > Any info or ptr will be appreciated. > > Thanks! > Nicolas. > > -------- Original Message -------- > Subject: [osol-discuss] Community creation > Date: Wed, 02 May 2007 09:47:42 -0600 > From: Nicolas Droux <Nicolas.Droux at Sun.COM> > To: opensolaris-discuss at opensolaris.org > > Hi folks, > > I'd like to propose the creation of a new community and I came across > the short process description at http://opensolaris.org/os/communities > That process however does not seem to match the article VII of the > recently approved constitution. Which way should I go now? Follow the > process described at http://opensolaris.org/os/communities, or is a new > process now in effect? > > Thanks, > Nicolas.
[ copying obg-discuss and, initially, osol-discuss. I'd suggest trimming osol-discuss on any followups however. ] Hi Nicolas, Things are in flux in that regard, and as such, the process on http://opensolaris.org/os/communities is drifting out of date. The good news is, some very interesting and relevant conversations about it have been taking place on ogb-discuss over the last couple weeks: http://mail.opensolaris.org/pipermail/ogb-discuss/2007-April/thread.html The thread titled "DTrace & MDB OpenSolaris communities" is of particular interest, I think. Based on those discussions, here's how I'd summarize things[1]: The current prevailing view is that OpenSolaris Community Group (CG) status depends on how established and vibrant the thing is that people are "grouping around". For example, DTrace, Zones, and Jim's new emerging Advocates CG[2] probably warrant CG status. By contrast things that are still small-medium; or not yet popular; or not yet established; etc., should probably be Projects (Project Groups?) sponsored by a CG (but of course always possessing the potential to someday evolve into a CG in their own right). And for an additional facet of this, some kinds of things might not warrant CG Status for sort of the opposite reason. That being they're too broad, and therefore too nebulous. That subject is being discussed in a thread started yesterday titled: "today's meeting". Eric 1. How _I'd_ summarize things should be taken with a grain of salt, as I'm not on the OGB. 2. See "Community Consolidation" thread on ug-discuss
