Hi,
Keith M Wesolowski wrote:
> On Thu, May 31, 2007 at 10:41:52AM +1200, Glynn Foster wrote:
>
>> Here's the project proposal that should have been out a long while back
>> (apologies, I'm happy to take the blame on this one). Before anyone gets too
>> caught up in how little the proposal actually covers, I intend to follow up
>> with
>> my thoughts if and when the project alias gets created - I'd like that
>> discussion to be far more focused than opensolaris-discuss has been.
>
> The process requires that this be sent to one or more community groups
> for sponsorship consideration - have you sent it to the Distributions
> and Packaging Group? The Constitution and OGB/2007/001 require any
> project proposal to come from a Group.
If I actually knew what community was responsible for that, I'd have talked to
them. It's the best fit for the project proposal, though pretty much
non-existent, and part of the OGB plan for re-organization. I'm not entirely
sure how to resolve this.
> If a Group sent us this request, I believe we would have to send it
> back for revision, for two reasons:
>
> 1. It is incomplete. It does not include a list of Participants
> acting as leaders, and the section on related projects is vague and
> could be interpreted in several ways that would preclude this effort
> from being represented as a project ("including" other projects is
> more properly a feature of a consolidation than a project;
> distributions aggregate consolidations). It's for the sponsoring
> Group(s) to determine whether the description of the "manner in which
> it will [solve problem(s)]" is sufficient, but if submitted as-is I
> would be skeptical that this requirement has been met, even
> superficially.
Including a list of leaders is easily doable, though I was worried that it might
alienate the people who are keen to be involved - or those within other projects
that are doing a lot of the work building the technology. If it's a necessity
for an approval add Ian Murdock and myself.
> 2. The clause "and putting OpenSolaris on a path to being a
> distribution as well as a source base" would place this project
> outside the scope of any extant Community Group; it reflects a desire
> to, in effect, change what the entire community is. More to the
> point, it also reflects a desire for "more equal than others"
> standing, something not generally contemplated by existing
> institutions. However, it's not as bad as that, because this
> statement does not actually seem to bear on the proposed work itself.
> The proposal would not suffer by its removal.
Absolutely, it is out of the current scope of what we've already put in place on
opensolaris.org. Cool huh? I don't believe we're any more equal than just about
any other community group or project - in fact, if anything, they are even more
important. Indiana just pulls all those bits together in where I feel there's an
amazing opportunity.
Glynn
_______________________________________________
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
