John Plocher writes: > James Carlson wrote: > > What I understand Keith to be saying (and what I agree with here) is > > that if you're going to do that in the name of OpenSolaris itself -- > > not just "PlocherX" but "OpenSolaris Reference Release" -- then that's > > logically something that ought to be a deliberate decision of the > > community, and not something that "just happens" or (worse) "happens > > because some executive at Sun says so." > > That "executive at Sun" (Ian M) is also a member of the OpenSolaris > Community, and modulo his contributer grants, just as much a player > as you or I.
Right. And I wouldn't dream of creating my own distribution and calling it "the OpenSolaris distribution." > Where in the community's charter or constitution does it say > that creating /an/ (not /the/) OpenSolaris distro that can be > reused by others as a reference must obtain "special" approval > by the OGB or OS.o community at large? I'll leave that to the more lawyerly among us. As noted before, I don't think the OGB itself actually grants any sort of approval to projects -- that's what community groups do. So, there's no reason to suppose that I'm insisting that it get one here. I'm more than willing to take these issues to the project group itself, though, *if* there's a complete project proposal. My take on the project is that the name "OpenSolaris" should belong to the larger community and not to any one distribution. This means that we'd be in the same discussion if (say) SchilliX decided to call itself "the Real OpenSolaris" instead. It seems like a special issue -- squatting in a public name space -- that we hadn't really considered before. It's at least new and potentially a broader problem. To me, creating a distribution that is somehow more equal than the others at this early point sounds like a disaster for the other distributions and a rather precipitous decision to fix what ultimately seems to be a gnat of a problem. (Can't find binaries? Why not just add "download here" links from the top-level page and fix SDLC?) > > I'm not sure it's necessarily an unmitigated good thing to have a > > single privileged reference release (what happens to distributions > > that decide to innovate in a different direction?), > > So it boils down to the fact that the OGB [or at least some of its > members] either don't like the name of a project or object to > some aspect of its goals. Huh? No. I think that's a serious misunderstanding. All that concerns me at this level is whether the original project proposal was complete. It was not. It lacked both community sponsorship (currently required in the process; obviously of some debatable merit) and, much more importantly, a list of project leaders. Projects without leaders seem rather pointless, and the old 1-pager process *did* require the identification of leaders, so this is nothing new or onerous. -- James Carlson, Solaris Networking <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sun Microsystems / 1 Network Drive 71.232W Vox +1 781 442 2084 MS UBUR02-212 / Burlington MA 01803-2757 42.496N Fax +1 781 442 1677 _______________________________________________ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
