On Wed, May 30, 2007 at 10:58:21PM -0700, John Plocher wrote:
> Why does Indiana have to meet these requirements when Nexenta, Belinix,
> MartUX, Schillix, SX, and all the other OS.o distros don't?
It doesn't. In fact, it doesn't have to meet any requirements at all
to be a project except those imposed by its sponsoring Group, from
which we still haven't heard word one. Some pending changes we're
contemplating might require projects to have a defined goal and
stopping point, but those changes haven't yet been adopted. Even so,
that's hardly an unfair or unreasonable limitation, especially since
Groups can use their right of self-governance to do indefinite work in
other ways. In fact, if those changes are approved, Indiana wouldn't
be a project at all; it could be represented as a committee or some
other internal structure within a Group for doing ongoing work with no
defined stopping point. The crippling, heavyweight bureaucratic
process of sending a simple 2-paragraph announcement to the OGB for
dissemination and resource allocation could be avoided, surely to
everyone's great relief.
If it wants to be considered a reference or official distribution
endorsed by the entire OpenSolaris community, then there are
additional requirements. Either the OGB, or, as Alan suggests, the
entire Membership, would have to evaluate and approve that proposal.
This would be true no matter which distribution's leadership makes the
request. My comments to Glynn have been to the effect that if he
wants this project proposal approved quickly and painlessly,
discussion of "putting OpenSolaris on a path to being a distribution
as well as a source base" is better left out.
> Why are you throwing up logistical barriers to this effort instead
> of facilitating them?
There is no barrier here. And, for good measure, here's some
facilitation:
To get your project on the road, have a Group approve and forward
a short, simple announcement as described by OGB/2007/001. That's
really all it takes.
If you don't like the requirement that projects be sponsored by
Groups, propose a Constitutional amendment.
Based on the amount of mail in this thread so far, I'd estimate that
enough time's been wasted for a Group to have written, approved, and
forwarded two or three Project Indiana proposals. If one factors in
the time this team has already spent embroiled in flamewars and
unfocused controversy on -discuss (a waste of time, BTW, that the
Group-led process is intended to eliminate), they'd probably be
stamping DVDs by now.
> Or is it that we simply /like/ eating our young?
Well, they are crunchy, and tasty with ketchup. But accusing us of
trying to kill this project with process? Sorry, it's just not true.
--
Keith M Wesolowski "Sir, we're surrounded!"
FishWorks "Excellent; we can attack in any direction!"
_______________________________________________
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
