On Thu, May 31, 2007 at 10:41:52AM +1200, Glynn Foster wrote:
> Here's the project proposal that should have been out a long while back
> (apologies, I'm happy to take the blame on this one). Before anyone gets too
> caught up in how little the proposal actually covers, I intend to follow up
> with
> my thoughts if and when the project alias gets created - I'd like that
> discussion to be far more focused than opensolaris-discuss has been.
The process requires that this be sent to one or more community groups
for sponsorship consideration - have you sent it to the Distributions
and Packaging Group? The Constitution and OGB/2007/001 require any
project proposal to come from a Group.
If a Group sent us this request, I believe we would have to send it
back for revision, for two reasons:
1. It is incomplete. It does not include a list of Participants
acting as leaders, and the section on related projects is vague and
could be interpreted in several ways that would preclude this effort
from being represented as a project ("including" other projects is
more properly a feature of a consolidation than a project;
distributions aggregate consolidations). It's for the sponsoring
Group(s) to determine whether the description of the "manner in which
it will [solve problem(s)]" is sufficient, but if submitted as-is I
would be skeptical that this requirement has been met, even
superficially.
2. The clause "and putting OpenSolaris on a path to being a
distribution as well as a source base" would place this project
outside the scope of any extant Community Group; it reflects a desire
to, in effect, change what the entire community is. More to the
point, it also reflects a desire for "more equal than others"
standing, something not generally contemplated by existing
institutions. However, it's not as bad as that, because this
statement does not actually seem to bear on the proposed work itself.
The proposal would not suffer by its removal.
--
Keith M Wesolowski "Sir, we're surrounded!"
FishWorks "Excellent; we can attack in any direction!"
