On Tue, Aug 07, 2007 at 09:43:05AM -0700, Stephen Hahn wrote: > > An OpenSolaris Consolidation is a Project that has been sponsored by > > an OpenSolaris Community, for which the Contributors have agreed to > > follow the policies set forth by the OpenSolaris W-Team, and has been > > accepted by the OpenSolaris W-Team. > > Can any Project become a Consolidation, or must this desire be > declared up front by a candidate?
I don't think this needs to be declared up front, but a project must (of technical necessity) declare whether or not it will target integration into a consolidation. Only a standalone project is eligible to become a consolidation; it has the properties of a consolidation: 1. Its contents do not duplicate those in any other consolidation, and 2. It is effectively parentless(*). The first of these is Alan's requirement (6); the second is an implementation detail. I suppose a project could elect at any time to switch between these two states, so long as it has not been granted consolidation status. (*) The parent of a consolidation is a previous incarnation of itself. > Can Consolidation status be removed? Which parties can initiate this > removal? If a project were no longer endorsed by any Community Group, it would be disbanded entirely. Otherwise, it seems that the W-team has this authority based on Alan's description. > > 4) That all original contributions to the Consolidation be made under a > > Contributor Agreement assigning joint rights to the OpenSolaris IP > > Steward designated by the OGB. The OGB's initial designation of > > IP Steward is Sun Microsystems, under the terms of the current > > Sun Contributor's Agreement. (Requirements for acceptable licenses > > are already listed in os_dev_process.) > > I don't think, under Charter, the OGB designates the Steward, but I > agree with the Contributor Agreement requirement. Why not? Article II requires only that the software we produce be "licensed to the public free of charge under one or more open source licenses approved by the Open Source Initiative". It also gives the OpenSolaris Community the "authority and responsibility for all decisions pertaining to the OpenSolaris software." If anyone can impose such a requirement, the OGB can. The real question is why we would want to. It is not "inconsistent with applicable laws and regulations" to do away with this requirement, and I see nothing at all allowing Sun to impose it. If we keep it, it should have an expiration date - 1 year might be reasonable - and should be expressed as a gift to Sun given freely in appreciation and reciprocation. But I'd have to wonder whether doing so is inconsistent with another of our Article II obligations, that of "fostering the evolution and adoption of the OpenSolaris code base". At this point, I simply don't see how the existing requirement helps anyone other than Sun (the corporation, not any of its employees, whose work is owned by Sun regardless). > > Once at least 3 OpenSolaris Consolidations have been designated, a distro > > claiming to be "based on OpenSolaris" should have a significant portion of > > at least one of the OpenSolaris Consolidations. A distro claiming to be > > "an OpenSolaris Reference distro" must contain the entirety of all current > > OpenSolaris Consolidations at the time of the feature freeze of its release. > > I think there are problems with "contain the entirety", but I think > exploring these OpenSolaris-ness tests is worthwhile. Yes, but it's also problematic to suggest that a "reference distribution" could include anything *more* than what's in the consolidations - otherwise, those contents may be something to which someone cannot in fact refer, defeating the entire purpose. This definitely requires more thought. -- Keith M Wesolowski "Sir, we're surrounded!" FishWorks "Excellent; we can attack in any direction!"
