On 06/11/2007, John Sonnenschein <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On 6-Nov-07, at 7:24 AM, Shawn Walker wrote: > > On 06/11/2007, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >>> It has been well over a year that we have been a self-governing > >>> body. > >>> The fact that the mechanisms we have are not used and that so little > >>> progress in certain areas has been made implies to me that they do > >>> not > >>> work. > >> > >> What specific areas are you thinking of? How is progress hampered > >> and how could a more active governing body have helped? > > > > The constitution states communities are responsible for "product > > development and marketing tasks." So far, I do not believe there has > > been sufficient progress in those areas. If product development here > > means "technical aspects"; then certainly there has been progress. > > However, if "product development" means having an end-result of the > > collective efforts of our community, then Project Indiana is the only > > project *on* OpenSolaris.org that represents that at this time. The > > fact that no initiative existed on OpenSolaris.org before this bears > > further investigation as to why. > > Shawn. You're unfairly dismissing a lot of peoples' hard work here. > You are saying that only indiana managed to collect all the projects > and ship something, ignoring that our model so far seems to be > "bringover the tree, work on your stuff, then putback". Take for
Quite the contrary. Note that I said *on* OpenSolaris.org. What is it that has detracted and discouraged community members from having their community distribution or starting one on OpenSolaris.org before now? Why is Project Indiana (that some see as started by Sun) the first project to make apparent the fruits of the community's labours? Your comment about "our cuurent model" is yet again a point about clear leadership. If, for example, we had clear leadership, we might have a lot more community distributions right now due to the drive towards ensuring that would happen. > example the xVM project's work, which integrated to ON and therefore > nevada quite aside from anything the indiana project is/was doing. > dwarf caiman was first seen in nevada, not indiana. Yes, but Solaris Express is a download link from OpenSolaris.org to Sun's website; it is very much Sun's product and there is very little communication about its internal workings, etc. Contrast that with Indiana, where: 1) it has a project on OpenSolaris.org 2) All of the key projects it depends on are represented on OpenSolaris.org 3) The work being done for the project (ignoring naming possibly) is fully represented here in the open on OpenSolaris.org 4) You can download it without giving any personal information to Sun or "registering" 5) It is freely redistributable 6) It is comprised as much as possible of open source components only > > > > > > Specifically, I think the following are what concerns me: > > > > 1) No end-product until recently (which when finally delivered was > > unfairly vilified over its name) > commented earlier > > > > 2) The lack of any community distributions having a presence on > > OpenSolaris.org other than Project Indiana (which some see as a Sun > > distribution) > > +1 to this. BeleniX, marTux and Nexenta need more airtime if the > website's going to promote indiana at all Precisely; what barriers exist to these distributions in participating here? Obviously, there must be something. That isn't to say that I believe that someone couldn't do that here now; just that there must be some sort of discouragement of it we don't know about. > > 3) The insufficient delegation or definition of "product development > > and marketing tasks" > > as someone mentioned earlier, we don't have an army of developers > itching to find a project to work on, we have a small handful of > developers interested in specific tasks ( I'm interested primarily in > emancipation and porting. if the OGB told me "go work on GNOME" i'd > laugh at them first and ignore them after i'm done with that ) I never said individuals; rather, I'm implying that the delegation *to community groups* should happen. The other point here though is that each project / community has not sufficiently defined what is available to do. I suspect we have a lot of potential contributors right now that do not contribute simply because we do not have: 1) A clearly defined contribution process 2) A clearly defined list of ways that they can contribute If you look at the Ubuntu website, as an example, they make it very apparent how you can get involved and contribute. The same with the FreeBSD project if I recall correctly. > > 4) The inability for the community to drive the content of this > > website directly > > suggestions for improvement? Again; which community group is responsible? This has been debated recently. > > 5) The lack of a defined contribution process for each project > > is this not the project leaders' responsibility ? Yes, but someone needs to ensure that it happens. Where's our clear leadership? -- Shawn Walker, Software and Systems Analyst http://binarycrusader.blogspot.com/ "We don't have enough parallel universes to allow all uses of all junction types--in the absence of quantum computing the combinatorics are not in our favor..." --Larry Wall _______________________________________________ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
