Hey,
Eric Boutilier wrote:
> Me too. In fact for me it's the CRUX of the whole problem.
> (Assuming this project still wants to be Sun-derived.) It's
> THE single show-stopper. In other words, without it, then I'd
> be happy to see the project go forward as-is.
So, can we just do it? I have power
On Thu, 31 May 2007, Simon Phipps wrote:
On May 31, 2007, at 13:36, James Carlson wrote:
I don't think anyone is saying that you can't create a distribution
yourself without bothering with any project, community, or governing
board. You can. Knock yourself out.
But that's not what's happeni
On Fri, 1 Jun 2007, Eric Boutilier wrote:
Me too. In fact for me it's the CRUX of the whole problem.
(Assuming this project still wants to be Sun-derived.) It's
THE single show-stopper. In other words, without it, then I'd
be happy to see the project go forward as-is.
Clarification: I was ref
On Thu, 31 May 2007, James Carlson wrote:
Glynn Foster writes:
...
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 th
Just incase people aren't paying attention.. Please read follow these threads.
Like minded individuals let's start working on an "OpenSolaris.org"
distro right now:
http://www.opensolaris.org/jive/thread.jspa?threadID=31958&tstart=0
Thread to discuss goals for OpenSolaris reference build. (India
John Sonnenschein wrote:
Okay, after thinking a bit harder about it, I withdraw my -1.
This isn't to say I support the project, I still fail to see a purpose beyond what we already have and I think indiana's a waste of time, but I'm not actively hostile towards it.
I do think that if it goes
On 6/1/07, Giles Turner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I feel that you will never ever get what Ian is going to do from the
OpenSolaris community. Not from Solaris users. Period.
This doesn't strike you as a bad thing? That's a sign of a lack of
transparency, and without transparency what you're
On 6/1/07, Giles Turner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I do think that if it goes ahead, calling the reference distribution by the
name OpenSolaris is dangerous ( does that mean that Belenix /isn't/ opensolaris? ).
Even if it is called by another name, if it is prominently featured on
opensolaris
On 5/31/07, Giles Turner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On 6/1/07, John Sonnenschein <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I threw in my -1 for a very specific reason, and that's that I don't
> think that this project benefits us ( where "us" is the opensolaris
> community ), and is at best a distraction & a
I threw in my -1 for a very specific reason, and that's that I don't
think that this project benefits us ( where "us" is the opensolaris
community ), and is at best a distraction & a sink for developer
talent that could be better used towards creating an open process.
On 5/31/07, Giles Turner <[E
Foolishly I started reading this thread just before going to bed. Subsequently
my wife has (at 2am)
kicked me from the bedroom as I keep tossing and turning going over the various
issues at play here.
Please put up with my additions to the discussion so I can unload and go and
get some sleep!/
On 6/1/07, John Sonnenschein <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On 6/1/07, Giles Turner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I feel that you will never ever get what Ian is going to do from the
> OpenSolaris community. Not from Solaris users. Period.
>
This doesn't strike you as a bad thing? That's a sign of a
My initial hostility towards ian's distro is that it reeks of
something just given to us by on high by "The Great Managers at SUNW"
(cathedral model) rather than any sort of community effort (bazaar
model) and I fear that'll translate in to the product being just some
advertising campaign for Sun,
I do think that if it goes ahead, calling the reference distribution by the
name OpenSolaris is dangerous ( does that mean that Belenix /isn't/
opensolaris? ).
Even if it is called by another name, if it is prominently featured on
opensolaris.org without others being represented...
I also h
Okay, after thinking a bit harder about it, I withdraw my -1.
This isn't to say I support the project, I still fail to see a purpose beyond
what we already have and I think indiana's a waste of time, but I'm not
actively hostile towards it.
I do think that if it goes ahead, calling the refere
On 6/1/07, John Sonnenschein <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On 5/31/07, Giles Turner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 6/1/07, John Sonnenschein <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > I threw in my -1 for a very specific reason, and that's that I don't
> > think that this project benefits us ( where "us" is th
On 6/1/07, John Sonnenschein <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I threw in my -1 for a very specific reason, and that's that I don't
think that this project benefits us ( where "us" is the opensolaris
community ), and is at best a distraction & a sink for developer
talent that could be better used toward
John Sonnenschein wrote:
A big -1 from me
We don't need YetAnotherDistro to jump start the community ( some might argue that Ian-diana does the opposite, since it's entirely a Sun initiative ), we need open development.
Sun is trying to do Open Development here. If you don't like it, than do
On 6/1/07, John Sonnenschein <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
A big -1 from me
We don't need YetAnotherDistro to jump start the community ( some might argue
that Ian-diana does the opposite, since it's entirely a Sun initiative ), we
need open development.
Open development agreed and things are mo
A big -1 from me
We don't need YetAnotherDistro to jump start the community ( some might argue
that Ian-diana does the opposite, since it's entirely a Sun initiative ), we
need open development.
As it stands we have a bug database behind sun's firewall that stuff
occasionally goes missing fro
On Thu, 31 May 2007, Alan Burlison wrote:
Make no mistake, I'm personally opposed to Indiana being the 'reference
distribution', mainly because I think it is a divisive label that in the long
run will discourage other people from setting up new distros.
This was brought up at SVOSUG by David
Ian Murdock wrote:
On 5/31/07, Alan Burlison <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 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,
> More source code and less comments/opinions!
Yes, please. I don't think one can necessarily fault the OpenSolaris
community for being bureaucratic; if a project wishes to lead with the
process and follow with the prototype, life will naturally feel very
bureaucratic. I (rather strongly) belie
Ian Murdock wrote:
On 5/31/07, Alan Burlison <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 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, fo
>Within Sun, for the last 17+ years, anyone could initiate a "project"
>at any time by simply sending a proposal email to a single internal
>alias. It required absolutely no prior approvals, no sponsorship,
>and no endorsement. (Though, while it is /always/ a good idea to
>have your manager be a
John Plocher wrote:
Within Sun, for the last 17+ years, anyone could initiate a "project"
at any time by simply sending a proposal email to a single internal
alias. It required absolutely no prior approvals, no sponsorship,
and no endorsement. (Though, while it is /always/ a good idea to
have y
Within Sun, for the last 17+ years, anyone could initiate a "project"
at any time by simply sending a proposal email to a single internal
alias. It required absolutely no prior approvals, no sponsorship,
and no endorsement. (Though, while it is /always/ a good idea to
have your manager be aware
James Carlson wrote:
> There's certainly a lack of clarity for outsiders here. At a minimum,
> this page:
>
> http://www.opensolaris.org/os/community/ogb/
>
> should have some link somewhere to our documents (just what is
> "OGB/2007/001" and who or what is actually managing this number
> sp
On Thu, 31 May 2007, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Yes, that seems to be to cumbersome; I would prefer OGB not to be
> involved in project creations as long as projects are started under
> the wings of a community and the community is not disfunctional
+1
I think we (the OGB) should bemore concerne
Alan Coopersmith wrote:
Alan Burlison wrote:
And I also dispute that the OGB actually has a mandate to impose such
a community-wide processes without the approval of entire community,
i.e. without a community-wide vote.
I would think that's the entire point of an OGB. There's no way to
cri
Keith M Wesolowski wrote:
Well, I didn't write it, but I do disagree with it ;-)
Since there was a period of several weeks during which public comment
was accepted (and incorporated!), I'm curious why you did not raise
your concerns then. There were also two public, open meetings at
which thi
Alan Burlison wrote:
And I also dispute that the OGB actually has a mandate to impose such a
community-wide processes without the approval of entire community, i.e.
without a community-wide vote.
I would think that's the entire point of an OGB. There's no way to
cripple OpenSolaris as fast a
On Thu, May 31, 2007 at 02:28:53PM +0100, Alan Burlison wrote:
> Well, I didn't write it, but I do disagree with it ;-)
Since there was a period of several weeks during which public comment
was accepted (and incorporated!), I'm curious why you did not raise
your concerns then. There were also tw
Simon Phipps wrote:
I do see a need for unambiguous language that sets out exactly how
these things are supposed to work. Otherwise, if we used only
"community-friendly" text, we'd forever get involved in pointless
squabbles about who has the authority to do what, or what things are
"required."
On May 31, 2007, at 13:47, James Carlson wrote:
I do see a need for unambiguous language that sets out exactly how
these things are supposed to work. Otherwise, if we used only
"community-friendly" text, we'd forever get involved in pointless
squabbles about who has the authority to do what, o
Frank Hofmann wrote:
http://www.opensolaris.org/os/community/on/devref_toc/
Quote:
"The Developers Reference is big. Really, really big. I mean,
you just won't believe how vastly, hugely, mind-bogglingly
big it is."
Two options on that sentence:
It's scary to you because it m
Alan Burlison writes:
> Read more like a credit agreement than a community-friendly document.
Agreed. Perhaps we also need an unofficial "how this works" document.
I do see a need for unambiguous language that sets out exactly how
these things are supposed to work. Otherwise, if we used only
"c
James Carlson wrote:
Alan Burlison writes:
OGB/2007/001 requires that you get the approval of both a community
group (2.7) *and* the OGB (2.2) which seems like overkill.
That would be overkill, if that's what it said.
Instead, it says that the community groups provide the OGB with the
requir
Alan Burlison writes:
> OGB/2007/001 requires that you get the approval of both a community
> group (2.7) *and* the OGB (2.2) which seems like overkill.
That would be overkill, if that's what it said.
Instead, it says that the community groups provide the OGB with the
required information about
Keith M Wesolowski writes:
> On Thu, May 31, 2007 at 12:30:08PM +1200, Glynn Foster wrote:
>
> > Looks like I've missed a set of meeting minutes - I'll try and write up
> > based on
> > the recording as soon as possible.
>
> No. You published a fine set of minutes for this meeting. They're at
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Agreed, but OGB/2007/001 quite clearly states that a project can only
exist if it is sponsored by a Community, and that any projects which
lose the sponsorship of a Community must cease to exist.
Right; I think the implications there are for "currently sponsored proje
On Thu, 31 May 2007, Ghee Teo wrote:
[ ... ]
Processes can be defined for a good intent, but it should be refined as
things developes, otherwise, we ends up putting unnecessary blocks along
the way, ...
Given the benefit of doubt (and not attributing things to malice which can
be explained ot
>Agreed, but OGB/2007/001 quite clearly states that a project can only
>exist if it is sponsored by a Community, and that any projects which
>lose the sponsorship of a Community must cease to exist.
Right; I think the implications there are for "currently sponsored projects
which lose sponsorsh
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Yes, that seems to be to cumbersome; I would prefer OGB not to be
involved in project creations as long as projects are started under
the wings of a community and the community is not disfunctional
In that case (if my reading of the OGB minutes is correct) Roland's ksh
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 5/31/07, Alan Burlison <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 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, f
>[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
>> Yes, that seems to be to cumbersome; I would prefer OGB not to be
>> involved in project creations as long as projects are started under
>> the wings of a community and the community is not disfunctional
>
>In that case (if my reading of the OGB minutes is correct) R
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Yes, that seems to be to cumbersome; I would prefer OGB not to be
involved in project creations as long as projects are started under
the wings of a community and the community is not disfunctional
In that case (if my reading of the OGB minutes is correct) Roland's ksh
>On 5/31/07, Alan Burlison <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 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 better o
On 5/31/07, Alan Burlison <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 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 better or worse.
I
Keith M Wesolowski wrote:
Or they could just ignore it entirely and put their projects on
SourceForge...
They could do that with endorsed projects, too. Hosting services are
artifacts, not the main reason to seek endorsement. In fact, although
7.10 requires that certain archived mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
From a cynical point of view, it gives people who don't contribute
technically (but want to be involved) something to do. Kind of like
how Government beaurocracy keeps people employed.
;-)
The level of beaurocracy in OpenSolaris exceeds what I've seen
in any other
On Thu, May 31, 2007 at 01:24:03AM +0100, Alan Burlison wrote:
> Or they could just ignore it entirely and put their projects on
> SourceForge...
They could do that with endorsed projects, too. Hosting services are
artifacts, not the main reason to seek endorsement. In fact, although
7.10 requ
Keith M Wesolowski wrote:
On Thu, May 31, 2007 at 12:30:08PM +1200, Glynn Foster wrote:
Looks like I've missed a set of meeting minutes - I'll try and write up based on
the recording as soon as possible.
No. You published a fine set of minutes for this meeting. They're at
http://mail.opens
Hi,
Keith M Wesolowski wrote:
> On Thu, May 31, 2007 at 12:30:08PM +1200, Glynn Foster wrote:
>
>> Looks like I've missed a set of meeting minutes - I'll try and write up
>> based on
>> the recording as soon as possible.
>
> No. You published a fine set of minutes for this meeting. They're at
On Thu, May 31, 2007 at 12:30:08PM +1200, Glynn Foster wrote:
> Looks like I've missed a set of meeting minutes - I'll try and write up based
> on
> the recording as soon as possible.
No. You published a fine set of minutes for this meeting. They're at
http://mail.opensolaris.org/pipermail/og
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 email to at least the -a
Hi,
Bonnie Corwin wrote:
> Eric Boutilier wrote:
>> On Wed, 30 May 2007, Alan Coopersmith wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> I know we approved it...
>>
>>
>> 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 m
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 email to at least the -announce alias
and new t
Eric Boutilier wrote:
On Wed, 30 May 2007, Alan Coopersmith wrote:
I know we approved it...
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
On Wed, 30 May 2007, Alan Coopersmith wrote:
I know we approved it...
I take it that means either I missed something (if so, help please) or the
OGB is behind on publishing meeting minutes...
Eric
___
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
opensolaris-dis
On Wed, 30 May 2007, Keith M Wesolowski wrote:
On Thu, May 31, 2007 at 10:41:52AM +1200, Glynn Foster wrote:
The process requires that this be sent to one or more community groups
for sponsorship consideration...
I don't agree. Here's how I'd put it: "The almost-but-not-quite-yet OGB
blessed p
61 matches
Mail list logo
