Stephen Lau wrote:
> Ashley Saulsbury wrote:
> 
>> Stephen Lau wrote:
>>
>>> Ashley Saulsbury wrote:
>>>
>>>> Stephen Lau wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Ashley Saulsbury wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Brandorr wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Tony,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>  From my understanding, projects can be promoted to communities, 
>>>>>>> but communities can not be demoted to projects.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> That being the case, you might consider a third approach to 
>>>>>>> getting up and runnning quickly. Seek approval from the Xen 
>>>>>>> community for a new project "ldom". This is the fastest path to 
>>>>>>> getting up and running quickly, as it only involves approval at 
>>>>>>> the CG level. At a latter date, ldom could be promoted to a full 
>>>>>>> community, or moved into the virtualization community as a 
>>>>>>> project (or set of projects).
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Our request is for full community status.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> At some future date if the Xen and Zones communities agree we can 
>>>>>> work towards merging to a single virtualization community.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Right now we have shipping product we want to open for community 
>>>>>> involvement - that's not the Xen community or the Zones community.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Why not open a Virtualisation Community and create an LDoms project 
>>>>> endorsed by the community?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Precisely because it *wont be* the open solaris virtualization 
>>>> community without Xen and Zones being a part.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> And I believe Xen and Zones should be a part of that.  If you want 
>>> someone to talk to them to see if they are interested in pursuing 
>>> that - I'll be happy to do that.  But Xen and Zones were 
>>> grandfathered as Communities since they existed before we had Project 
>>> support.
>>>
>>>> I don't have a problem with Zones and Xen being relegated to being 
>>>> projects ... if you the board are interested in persuing that route 
>>>> perhaps you could / should raise that with them.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> There is no "relegation".  Communities are not greater or better than 
>>> projects.  They are different.
>>>
>>> What will you do with your LDoms community?  Publish code?  So sorry, 
>>> you can't, since you can't have repositories.  So what are you going 
>>> to do?  Create an LDoms project and endorse it with your LDoms 
>>> community? So now you have both an LDoms project and an LDoms 
>>> community?  That's confusing and silly.
>>
>>
>> Perhaps this is the confusion.
>>
>> LDoms is not a project - it is a community of people who are working 
>> on numerous projects related to the LDoms family of products.
>>
>> This will involve at a minimum the SPARC hypervisor, Solaris driver 
>> projects, domain manager projects, management tools, migration tools, 
>> installation tools, backup tools etc. ... please note the plurality of 
>> projects in each of these areas. There will likely be dozens of 
>> projects (since there are already dozens of projects even within the 
>> Sun internal development team) - this will (hopefully) only increase 
>> as we get wider community engagement.
>>
>> Each of these projects will have their own milestones and code drops - 
>> and will come and go over time.
>>
>> As such, LDoms exactly fits your definition of a community - and 
>> should have its own governing board and project level coordination.
> 
> 
> And are all those projects ready to be initiated and started now?  Do 
> you have content?  Are you truly ready for open development, open 
> design, etc.?

Yes.

> 
> If so, then great.  I'll be happy to vote for an open LDoms Community 
> Group with tons of content ready to go, with projects ready to be 
> instantiated and endorsed - and lots of open discussion and design on 
> multiple mailing lists.

Great - thanks !

cheers,

ash.



> 
> For the very same reason people inside of Sun don't get to start out 
> with their own huge consolidation, or their own C-team, or their very 
> own ARC - I don't see why you want to start out with a Community with 
> your own governance representation.  What's your opposition to starting 
> out smaller with a defined scope and then growing?
> 
> cheers,
> steve
> 


Reply via email to