Joerg Schilling wrote:
Does this mean you don't like the generic fs community because the current
comunity structure is wrong and you cannot change that?
Let me try to articulate my concerns a little better.
I'm 100% in favor of having an FS community. I've also mentioned many
times I would like to see a kernel community as well.
My concern is regarding overlap in communities, and its resulting
potential for conflicts and ambiguity. According to the governance and
charter of communities, the core developers within a community are
responsible for setting the direction of the community, determining
releases, etc., not just establishing projects. If there are overlaps
between communities, then it is no longer clear which community has
jurisdiction over the direction, roadmaps, release cycles, or even end
product names. Hence my comment earlier in this thread of "that way lies
madness".
Having competing projects can be a good thing, especially early on when
the various teams involved have different approaches in mind, the projects
are in concept phase, and there is little data in hand to determine with
any degree of certainty which approach is technically superior.
Having competing communities sounds like a recipe for disaster.
Perhaps I'm overly paranoid, and having an FS community would be just fine
alongside UFS, NFS, and ZFS.
In general I'm dissatisfied with the overall community structure because
it seems spread far and wide, yet it demonstrably has significant gaps in
areas where OpenSolaris needs community involvement and guidance.
Furthermore, as it stands right now the governance proposal has no means
of addressing the situation.
- Eric
_______________________________________________
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
