On Wed, Apr 12, 2006 at 04:37:59PM -0500, James Dickens wrote: > see http://www.opensolaris.org/jive/thread.jspa?messageID=7545 the > community aspects of the community was just a facade. To appear > opensolaris friendly...
I participated in that thread at that time and I'm familiar with the issues raised. I do not understand why you or anyone else is claiming there is a 'facade' being raised. We simply don't have the time to construct any facades; what we're trying to do is solve the technical problems I described and which others pointed out in the thread you reference, and bring together a collection of disparate efforts. > "3. Initial Structure > > Solaris management has asked Steve Christensen to be the gate keeper. > Steve has maintained the sunfreeware.com site for many years. The > source base will be the Companion contents for Solaris 10 minus those > packages that are now included in Solaris 11 or those packages > considered no longer important. Requests for upgrading existing > packages and/or adding new packages will reviewed by a team of Sun > engineers. Interested external people will be invited to join this > team. The goal is equal representation. The review team will follow > all applicable Open Solaris processes. Many implementation details > remain to be determined." > > perhaps you are unaware of the CCD group because it was outsourced. It > is also rumored that in offering Steve Christensen the role of gate > keeper Sun made payments to him in cash and hardware to him. I don't have access to Sun's financial information, nor do I want to. What I do know is that Steve has been asked to do certain work necessary to the transition of the CCD to open development, and to continue contributing to that development in the role of gatekeeper. The amount and type of compensation offered to him, if any, and the length of time for which he will provide these services, are outside my knowledge and control. Consider an analogous question: is Danek's employment by Sun deleterious to the openness of ON? I certainly don't think so. > on another mailing list, the following was posted by eric B. > > From: Eric Boutilier <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Mailed-By: lists.blastwave.org > Reply-To: internal list for the CSW maintainers > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: internal list for the CSW maintainers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Date: Apr 12, 2006 11:16 AM > Subject: Re: [csw-maintainers] Proposal for Community Software for Solaris > > My 2 cents: The Companion CD psuedo-consolidation is supposed to come > out this month (knock on wood), and I for one have been awaiting that > (eagerly). Until its out in the open there's no way for the community to > compare, contrast, and hopefully somehow reconcile the overlap that > results from having both a CCD co-development system and a Blastwave > (pkg-get/CSW) co-development system essentially working toward the same > goal. (Not to mention the JDS community's spec-files-extras, which in a > limited way is yet a third one having the same goal. See: I do not understand the relevance of this repost. Eric is sharing a personal opinion, which appears reasonable. Nothing he says contradicts anything I've explained in this thread, nor does it offer foundation for your assertion that this project represents a violent Sun-controlled effort to disregard or destroy Blastwave. > no the group isn't the C team unless you referring to steven > christensen as the C-team. Let's be clear. The SFW C-team owns the CCD in exactly the same way we own SFWnv. That team includes a number of people, including Steve, who is but one member and has - in the absence of a global OGB-sponsored strategy that would indicate otherwise - but one vote. Like all Solaris C-teams, we're required to participate in the Solaris-wide move to open both our source and our development processes. And that is exactly what we are doing. In fact, I proposed this project because I agreed to do so as a part of our plan for opening the Companion. > > I can't pretend I'm happy about how long it's taken us to get to this > > point. The project proposal is evidence that we are about to start > > making the kind of progress you're looking for, and wish to do so in > > an open manner. > > > > The proposal was made in August of last year, they are preparing to > release an actual product, yet nothing has been open about it other > than the announcement. You could say the same about every other consolidation that's been released. Until the consolidation is open, exactly what kind of information do you expect to receive? The first visible step in opening previously closed projects and consolidations to broader participation is the creation of an opensolaris.org project, which is exactly what we are doing here and the same thing that over a dozen other project/consolidation teams have done before us. > Well if that is true, no announcement was made, but it appears that > its an old boy network is still in place because no one without a sun > badge is part of it. See all other C-teams. This problem is broader than any single consolidation; if you mean to ask when the first non-Sun-employed individual will join a C-team, that's a valid question but not, so far as I can see, specific to the Companion. > How long have they been working on "opening" an opensource > distribution of software? Not trying to start a license war, but the > GPL requires access to the changes made to the programs seems like it > should of been open from the beginning and it still isn't today. The licenses under which Sun received the software have been respected; source packages are available alongside the binary packages. That the entire gate was not open from the very beginning is unfortunate and probably unnecessary but also well beyond our ability to influence at this late date. How long have we been working on this? About 9 months now. I can't offer you a good explanation for why it's taking so long. If it makes you feel better, feel free to assume that I've personally obstructed it because I'm trying to make the program fail. That's not true, of course, but truth has no place in a scapegoating exercise anyway, and you surely seem to be looking for an object to which you may attach your anger, hatred, and suspicion. Lay it on me, brother. > This isn't a closed source project that has to go through legal and > other reviews like the Solaris source, it can be made public by Unfortunately, that's not true. You are making a mistake I've made several times as well: attempting to derive a Sun Legal policy through the use of common sense. > posting the source and scripts on a web site, and throw open the > doors, but this is not what happened if this small group is behind the > latest CCD release, it basically followed the same old pattern of > releasing an updated version, no input from the external community > just Sun once again rubber stamping a release created in the back > rooms. I don't see any community involvement. What specifically are you taking about here? The reason there has been no community involvement is that the consolidation has not yet been opened. As I've explained several times already, that is exactly what this project proposal is all about! > Quote: Instead, we envision a distribution model much closer to > Blastwave's (or to any > number of similar systems with which you may be familiar, such as > Gentoo or the BSD Ports systems)." > > why reinvent the wheel? is it NIH (not invented here) syndrome > Blastwave has over 1400 packages ported. Seems like a waste, to start > again, if you want to create a different installer so be it, but you > can still borrow from blastwave's work or perhaps you can work > together as offered previosly? Nowhere did I propose - and certainly not in the original, one-paragraph description of this project - reinventing anything. Instead, a thorough, methodical evaluation of requirements and existing implementations, including but not exclusively Blastwave's, needs to be made. That will be a technical effort, open to all, undertaken as a part of this project. Working with people who have experience in this problem space will be critical to the success of the effort. > do something to show that the assumptions are false. please, this has > all been lip service, show some code, create a site. etc. Let's back up. Please re-read the head post in this thread. What's being proposed is a project (which are best described as "containers for code and related discussion on the site") to house the Companion Software and its ongoing development. How exactly does that differ from 'show[ing] some code, creat[ing] a site...' ? -- Keith M Wesolowski "Sir, we're surrounded!" Solaris Kernel Team "Excellent; we can attack in any direction!" _______________________________________________ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
