On Mon, Jun 04, 2007 at 11:06:07AM -0500, Eric Boutilier wrote: > Cool, this is the first new CG under the new process... Or maybe it's a tie > with the Advocacy Community. Anyway, I think the next step is for the > website admin/ops team (copied) to work with the leaders of the HA Cluster > Community to get the new webpage, etc. set up.
I guess it's time for me to be "obstructionist" again. Sigh. The Constitution very clearly lays out this process, and it does not end when the nominating Members agree that yes, they are in fact making this nomination. Therefore, the next step is *not* in fact to go off and set up web pages. It's exactly what I described in my attempt to help the nominating Members be clearly and concisely communicating the process and the next steps: a public comment period of not less than 14 days, followed by an OGB vote on whether to instantiate the proposed Group. If the OGB approves, then it will possible to allocate hosting resources to the new Group. Sec. 7.4 spells it out very explicitly. What would be helpful are comments as to whether people support this Community Group's formation and believe it would be a viable contributor to OpenSolaris. Except for the nominating Members, "+1" is not really helpful - what do people actually think about this? Is it troubling to anyone that they're proposing to form a Community Group consisting entirely of Sun employees paid to work on and promote a product that is neither open source as of this writing nor a part of OpenSolaris proper? Do people believe the proposal reflects an appropriate granularity of charter? What useful projects do people envision this Group sponsoring in the future? Is it realistic to expect that people not employed by Sun will be able to make important contributions in this area? Is there reason to think any would want to? Would this Community Group be expected to sponsor work in OpenSolaris of general use for all HA clustering software, or only SunCluster? If a technical conflict arises between the needs of SunCluster and the needs of other HA clustering software, how would this Group resolve that conflict? I'm sure there are plenty of other questions people would like answered which I haven't even thought of. This opportunity for public comment and questions should not be taken lightly; I know I'll be watching closely to see what other Members think of this proposal. -- Keith M Wesolowski "Sir, we're surrounded!" FishWorks "Excellent; we can attack in any direction!"
