Alan Burlison wrote:
> Bonnie Corwin wrote:
>
>>> I take it that means either I missed something (if so, help please)
>>> or the
>>> OGB is behind on publishing meeting minutes...
>>
>>
>> I think this is about more than meeting minutes. If there is a new
>> policy, it seems there should be ema
Ian Murdock wrote:
> On 5/31/07, Alan Burlison wrote:
>
>> > The level of beaurocracy in OpenSolaris exceeds what I've seen
>> > in any other open source group by an order of magnitude and
>> > is a facet of life at Sun that we seem to have carried over from
>> > Solaris to OpenSolaris, for bette
Ian Murdock wrote:
> So, it seems the crux of the matter is the following decision:
>
> 1. OpenSolaris should remain a source base only. Sun
> and others use that source base to build (potentially incompatible)
> operating systems based on the OpenSolaris code base.
>
> 2. OpenSolaris should be an
Alan Coopersmith wrote:
> [Added ogb-discuss, since that's where any real change has to
> happen - opensolaris-discuss will get you nothing useful.]
>
> Darren.Reed at Sun.COM wrote:
>
>> Within the OpenSolaris community, we have some arbitrary
>> designations we give to people - contributor and
Alan Coopersmith wrote:
> Darren.Reed at Sun.COM wrote:
>
>> Ultimately, I'd like to see it removed.
>> *Everyone* should be a contributor or able to be one.
>
>
> Then you're basically redefining it to be the same as "Participant",
> which is anyone who filled out the registration form on opensol
In addition to coming up with a catch phrase or a very short
definition about what OpenSolaris is about, we also need a
mascot/logo - the current splattering of source code with the
"open(2)" is cute from a geek perspective but it is hardly the
kind of thing you could expect people to carry on boxe
Ron Kleinman wrote:
> Brian Gupta wrote:
>
>> On 6/25/07, Jim Grisanzio wrote:
>>
>>> Simon Phipps wrote:
>>> > Me too. The one Chandan drew was gorgeous, sunglasses and all.
>>>
>>> http://blogs.sun.com/chandan/date/20050617
>>
>>
>> I like the Bush Baby Chandan drew.
>>
>> But, at this time, I
Sara Dornsife wrote:
>
>> It's inline with what I expected which is why in the original
>> email I cc'd the OGB because unless they have delegated
>> control over this to the advocacy forum, advocacy-discuss
>> has no authority to make any decisions. Point here being
>> that there is no "advocacy
Keith M Wesolowski wrote:
>On Mon, Jun 25, 2007 at 12:02:46PM -0700, Darren.Reed at sun.com wrote:
>
>
> ...
>
>>There have been lots of ideas and rationales about what is
>>good or bad, and when someone said "shark" (specifically
>>
>
>And this same damned discussion has been going for almost 3 y
Stephen Lau wrote:
> Darren.Reed at sun.com wrote:
>
>> Now if the response of the OGB is to say "advocacy, go and
>> look at this and come back with a plan", great, but so far
>> the OGB has *NOT* responded and more pointedly, Steve Lau
>> has since said that his email was *his personal opinion*,
Alan Coopersmith wrote:
> Darren.Reed at Sun.COM wrote:
>
>> The model that I envisage of how it should work is:
>> - ogb asks advocacy to go and do this
>> - advocacy goes and does it, comes back with a result
>> - ogb says "thank you" and gives it a stamp of approval.
>
>
> I don't think having
Eric Boutilier wrote:
> On Mon, 25 Jun 2007, Darren.Reed at Sun.COM wrote:
>
>> Stephen Lau wrote:
>>
>>> I still maintain that identity and 'creating a mark' are not issues
>>> that should involve the OGB. The OGB should be about governance,
>>> not a generic leadership board. These sorts of
Stephen Lau wrote:
> Darren.Reed at sun.com wrote:
> ...
>
>> From the very start of this, my position has been that getting this
>> to properly motivate people requires a competition with a prize at
>> the end and that for this reason it requires more thought than the
>> community "just doing it
Simon Phipps wrote:
> I would like to suggest follow-up is directed solely to advocacy-
> discuss (I have set reply-to).
>
> On Jun 26, 2007, at 01:04, Darren.Reed at Sun.COM wrote:
>
>> And yes, I feel that some kind of prize or reward is essential,
>> otherwise
>> we don't stand a very good c
Jim Grisanzio wrote:
> ...
> Doesn't the OGB have more important things to do?
Such as become a 501(c)3 entity in some place like Delaware?
Or?
Quite possibly it does, but if it does, ogb-discuss does not give
that impression to me.
Darren
Jim Grisanzio wrote:
> Darren.Reed at Sun.COM wrote:
>
>
>
>> There have been lots of ideas and rationales about what is
>> good or bad, and when someone said "shark" (specifically
>> those that eat pengiuns), my thoughts turned to "killer whale",
>> also known as the "orca" - but I digress.
Keith M Wesolowski wrote:
>...
>
>If you feel strongly about that strategy in general, perhaps you'd
>like to go do the legwork and find out what's required to set up an
>independent 501(c)(3) or similar foundation (or a non-US equivalent if
>that would be advantageous). Without something like th
Alan Coopersmith wrote:
> Darren.Reed at Sun.COM wrote:
>
>> Is making OpenSolaris a non profit organisation on the
>> agenda of the OGB?
>
>
> No - what would the benefit of that be?
To make it an attractive destination for other companies,
besides Sun, to donate cash/hardware.
Or is making
Keith M Wesolowski wrote:
> ...
>So I'd like to understand why you
>feel that such a step should be our highest priority.
>
>
Because until it does, my take on it is that OpenSolaris
is a project at Sun and not an open source community
or entity in its own right.
It's that simple.
Darren
Alan Coopersmith wrote:
> Darren.Reed at Sun.COM wrote:
>
>> To make it an attractive destination for other companies,
>> besides Sun, to donate cash/hardware.
>
>
> And what would we do with that? (Really - I'm coming from
> a background of the X.Org Foundation, which is having a hard
> time fi
Simon Phipps wrote:
>
> On Jun 26, 2007, at 02:39, Darren.Reed at Sun.COM wrote:
>
>> Isn't anyone in the least bit interested seeing OpenSolaris
>> actually be able to employ people or pay for things itself
>> rather than depend on the good will of Sun to do it all?
>
>
> OK, I'm confused. Earlie
21 matches
Mail list logo
