Hi,
James Carlson wrote:
> This discussion is obviously not getting anywhere, so if project leads
> aren't available and the project somehow still wants to go forward,
> then let's open the whole topic of the project creation process back
> up again at the next OGB meeting. Please do try to contribute so that
> the new process (whatever it may be) is more to your liking.
Indeed, but it's showing a process that arguably the membership doesn't agree
with - as you say, it's a discussion point for the next meeting.
In the interests of moving this on, here's the following amendments to the
proposal.
1.3 Sponsors
This project has a lot of overlap with a number of Community Groups in
terms of technology but has particularly strong links to the
'Distributions & Packaging' Community Group. For the purposes of this
proposal, the 'Desktop' Community Group will sponsor it.
1.4 Involvement
There is a strong intention for this to be a community grass roots
project, with open contribution. We hope for this project to be
consensus driven, though ultimately the project leads will need
to dictate direction if that proves unfeasible for delivering
a timely release. While many of those decisions can be made within
that specific project area, based on requirements, there may be a
real need for a technical committee (project leads) to be
the sole arbiter.
Project Leads: Glynn Foster
Ian Murdock
The only other sticking point is the name, and I agree with your concerns -
though arguably that's the most exciting part of the project proposal. I'm not
trying alienate all the other current or future distributions in any of this,
and in fact, I'd encourage their participation or thoughts. I think there's a
significant benefit to all of this, and if it turns into 2 years wasted (I
believe it won't), then it will be valuable experience for us all nonetheless.
Glynn
_______________________________________________
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
