Stephen Hahn <sch at sun.com> writes: > * Richard Lowe <richlowe at richlowe.net> [2007-12-12 23:26]: >> Stephen Hahn <sch at sun.com> writes: >> >> > * Alan Coopersmith <alan.coopersmith at Sun.COM> [2007-12-12 22:56]: >> >> >From a quick scan of the webpages for those communities, it seems all >> >> >but one >> >> are meeting the other prime requirement - that of having a public >> >> discussion >> >> forum. The sole exception is the OS/Net community, which will need to >> >> set up >> >> a forum ASAP in order to have a place to discuss any further Core >> >> Contributor >> >> grants for it. >> > >> > I want to confirm that, since most ON general technical discussion is >> > taking place on opensolaris-code, opensolaris-code is seen as *not* >> > meeting the requirement of a CG's public forum (so I can help the Core >> > Contributors of ON meet this requirement). Right? >> >> opensolaris-code isn't ON-specific, or associated with any community. > > A review of the threads shows easily 80+% are concerned with > ON-related issues. I am asking only to avoid causing that functioning > list from being fragmented.
Ah, I was concerned about either changing the focus out from under the current subscribers, or losing -code as a generally applicable list regardless of community. >> To hold by whatever else, they also need a list for their core >> contributors to be making decisions on, and for that to be actually >> used. > > Such a list can be added--using -dev or -private. It certainly should not be private. I was meaning that the running of the community is allegedly done by the core contributors thereof, it seems they'd need a public list to do that on. -- Rich
