* Dave Miner <Dave.Miner at sun.com> [2007-05-31 12:36]: > Glynn Foster wrote: > >Hey, > > > >Stephen Hahn wrote: > >> Accordingly, I'd like to get the Core Contributor list for the > >> Approachability CG to reflect that. An initial list would resemble > >> > >> - Dave Miner (dminer); Install and Packaging > >> - John Beck (jbeck); Networking/NWAM > >> - Stephen Hahn (sch); SMF/., ./sfwnv > >> - David Powell (dep); SMF/Visual Panels > >> - Doug Leavitt (djl); ./[various naming projects] > >> > >> with additions from Desktop/JDS and others likely. > > > >Is this list final? If so, I'll be happy to process it - if you want to > >wait > >until you add some more people, that's fine too. > > > > Not having been involved in any of the community reorganization > discussion up to this point, I'm clearly lacking a lot of context. > Personally, I'm quite doubtful that the Approachability community is > going to be particularly vital and viable unless it has a substantial > leadership commitment (and no, I'm not volunteering...); the last two > years have given scant evidence that it really is a community. In each > of the above core contributors and projects I presently see other > communities in which the work would be equally well carried on. My own > point of view is that the Approachability community has pretty well been > rendered into more technology-driven pieces, following the Solaris > organization that originally established it.
I actually don't agree with this viewpoint--that internal organization validates CG viability--in that there have been continuous threads about absent features and inconveniences across the Community. The original community proposal http://mail.opensolaris.org/pipermail/opensolaris-discuss/2005-August/008588.html doesn't seem to have become invalid in the face of that SMI-specific reorganization. Jim's certainly right that David Comay's recent examinations into these deficits might find a home in Approachability. If you would prefer to keep Installation out or John would like NWAM to be more of a Networking CG topic, no big deal--we'll just show up with a collection of requirements/RFEs/complaints. Projects that lack homes, such as name service interop and the SFW consolidation, seem like reasonable fits into Approachability. I will resist commenting on Approachability's last two years in general; I would have like to have been more involved, but I had to spend time on something else... - Stephen -- sch at sun.com http://blogs.sun.com/sch/
