Al Hopper wrote:
On Thu, 31 May 2007, Ian Murdock wrote:
On 5/31/07, Al Hopper <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Thu, 31 May 2007, James Carlson wrote:
> Roy T. Fielding writes:
>> As I said, the proposal is obviously wrong. One of these days, Sun
>> marketing will stop trying to run this project from the peanut
gallery,
>> but that doesn't change the fact that the proposal cannot be accepted
>> by OpenSolaris as written.
>
> On the plus side, it looks like ogb-discuss is a direct pipe to the
> pages of news.com.com. We could do worse.
OR - we could have OGB members that think with their brains and not
with their fingers (over the keyboard) and do much, much better when
it comes to writing project proposals for highly visible OpenSolaris
initiatives.
Please cut us some slack. On the one hand, you want transparency.
So, we're being transparent, and you're seeing what's going on in
real time. We want to spin up a project so we can talk about product
requirements rather than simply present them to you, which by
definition means much of what's being proposed isn't fully formed,
and you criticize the proposal for being vague. What if Glynn had
posted a fully fleshed out PRD? Would you not be criticizing
him for not getting community input? You can't have it both ways.
[Hi Ian M]
Re "both ways": I (personally) want it one way. I want OpenSolaris to
be successful. I want it to florish and be self-sustaining. I want it
to be *the* model FOSS Operating System on the planet. I want it to act
as a magnet and draw in other developers because of its broad
accross-the-board appeal and superior technology, features, facilities,
performance and (most importantly) participants. And I want to it to be
seen as the FOSS project that outshines, outlives and out-"everythings"
any/every similar effort. And from this perspective, top level Sun
executives willing to commit resources to it is a very Good Thing (TM)
and, project Indiana, or any other OpenSolaris based new distribution,
is only Good News for OpenSolaris.
And I'm very much in favor of new ideas and new perspectives - such as
the Indiana initiative. This is one of the reasons I stepped aside from
the OGB - I believe that for OpenSolaris to be successful we need to
attract new OGB members with new ideas, new energy and new perspectives.
[that has already been accomplished]
But what I don't want to see is a half baked proposal presented on a
public mailing list as a fait accompli signed by an OGB board member.
And what I'm really miffed at is stuff like this:
"While many of those decisions can be made within that specific
project area, based on requirements, there may be a real need for a
sole arbitor, Ian Murdock"
Why? Because I've spent two years (along with many others) trying to
persuade the masses that OpenSolaris is a community run project and not
an extension of Sun Corporate. As Roy has already pointed out, there is
no concept of a "sole arbitor" within OpenSolaris. And that concept of
a "sole arbitor" is diametrically opposed to *everything* that FOSS is
about. And OpenSolaris is a community FOSS Project - not a playground
for a new, well connected, Sun employee with visibility/accountability
to the highest levels of Sun executive management (meaning you of course).
I think we are all trying to build a community here. That work is not
only reflected in the CAB/OGB-1 and OGB-2, but it's also reflected in
the Solaris engineering organization and in the new people coming to the
project. Some of the growing pains are obvious, sure, but there is no
single individual giving marching orders to everyone else. That model
wouldn't be successful here anyway.
What I anticipated, from what I read over the last several weeks, was a
technically correct and competent proposal that was compliant with all
the OpenSolaris rules, best practices and implied intentions which
should serve as a model for anyone else to follow (remember OGB members
are role models). Instead what was presented is a political nightmare.
And it succeeded only in bringing the Indiana initiative to a dead stop.
Shoddy workmanship like this (proposal) will not attract developer
mindshare and does not faciliate forward progress. And the ensuing
political debate is a further unnecessary diversion - as expressed most
elegantly by the illustrious Bryan Cantrill.
Bryan's post is excellent. Clearly something to model. Keith expressed
similar thoughts earlier as well. And although I certainly have some
issues with how Indy has been communicated, I also believe the
conversation has been good for OpenSolaris. We have to work through
these things to earn our way as a functional community. Over time
consensus will be reached. Also, many of the ideas are good and should
be explored (but they are certainly not all new and some are already
being addressed). If it's messy it's messy. I can remember talking about
some of these things a year /before/ OpenSolaris even launched, and it
was messy back then, too. :) We'll get there.
With all that said, AFAIK, it's water under the bridge and now we need
to look forward and move forward with the Indiana initiative as quickly
as possible.
yah, I agree. Set up the project and get going. Sink or swim.
Jim
--
Jim Grisanzio http://blogs.sun.com/jimgris
--
_______________________________________________
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org