|
Replies:
21
-
Last Post:
Mar 16, 2007 2:18 PM
by: kupfer
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Priorities results
Posted:
Mar 14, 2007 11:56 AM
|
|
Posted at
http://poll.opensolaris.org/1/
Summary:
1. Deploy a public defect management system
2. Deploy a public Request To Integrate (RTI) system
3. Deploy a public code review facility on opensolaris.org
4. Reorganize the existing Community/Project organization
5. Deploy a public wiki on opensolaris.org.
Discuss!
- Stephen
--
Stephen Hahn, PhD Solaris Kernel Development, Sun Microsystems
stephen dot hahn at sun dot com http://blogs.sun.com/sch/
_______________________________________________
cab-discuss mailing list
cab-discuss at opensolaris dot org
|
|
|
Posts:
818
From:
San Francisco CA US
Registered:
3/9/05
|
|
|
|
Re: Priorities results
Posted:
Mar 14, 2007 12:28 PM
in response to: Stephen Hahn
|
|
On Wed, Mar 14, 2007 at 11:56:07AM -0700, Stephen Hahn wrote:
> Summary:
>
> 1. Deploy a public defect management system
> 2. Deploy a public Request To Integrate (RTI) system
> 3. Deploy a public code review facility on opensolaris.org
> 4. Reorganize the existing Community/Project organization
> 5. Deploy a public wiki on opensolaris.org.
>
> Discuss!
One question I'd have for those who voted for #2 ahead of #4: Who
should be responsible for approving RTIs (or for that matter,
requiring approval of same), and under what authority would they
operate?
--
Keith M Wesolowski "Sir, we're surrounded!"
FishWorks "Excellent; we can attack in any direction!"
_______________________________________________
cab-discuss mailing list
cab-discuss at opensolaris dot org
|
|
|
|
|
Posts:
206
From:
AU
Registered:
6/13/05
|
|
|
|
Re: Priorities results
Posted:
Mar 14, 2007 12:50 PM
in response to: wesolows
|
|
Keith M Wesolowski wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 14, 2007 at 11:56:07AM -0700, Stephen Hahn wrote:
>
>> Summary:
>>
>> 1. Deploy a public defect management system
>> 2. Deploy a public Request To Integrate (RTI) system
>> 3. Deploy a public code review facility on opensolaris.org
>> 4. Reorganize the existing Community/Project organization
>> 5. Deploy a public wiki on opensolaris.org.
>>
>> Discuss!
>
> One question I'd have for those who voted for #2 ahead of #4: Who
> should be responsible for approving RTIs (or for that matter,
> requiring approval of same), and under what authority would they
> operate?
>
I would think that would have to remain the area of the consolidations
and the c-teams (or whatever they get called) to decide on the
appropriate consolidation based framework.
The reason that I voted that way was not so much for the ability to log
an RTI externally (although that is a worthy goal and should have a
relatively high priority within the "project" to deploy such a beast),
but for the transparency that an external RTI process would give.
alan.
--
Alan Hargreaves - http://blogs.sun.com/tpenta
Staff Engineer (Kernel/VOSJEC/Performance)
Systems Technical Service Center
Sun Microsystems
_______________________________________________
cab-discuss mailing list
cab-discuss at opensolaris dot org
|
|
|
|
|
Posts:
1,321
From:
US
Registered:
4/27/05
|
|
|
|
Re: Priorities results
Posted:
Mar 14, 2007 1:03 PM
in response to: wesolows
|
|
Keith M Wesolowski wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 14, 2007 at 11:56:07AM -0700, Stephen Hahn wrote:
>
>
>> Summary:
>>
>> 1. Deploy a public defect management system
>> 2. Deploy a public Request To Integrate (RTI) system
>> 3. Deploy a public code review facility on opensolaris.org
>> 4. Reorganize the existing Community/Project organization
>> 5. Deploy a public wiki on opensolaris.org.
>>
>> Discuss!
>>
>
> One question I'd have for those who voted for #2 ahead of #4: Who
> should be responsible for approving RTIs (or for that matter,
> requiring approval of same), and under what authority would they
> operate?
>
Excellent point. I think we need ARCs, but we also need some
gatekeeping organization. I do not believe that that Community/Project
organization necessarily follows along the consolidation boundaries that
would manage putbacks, however.
This is a good question for the new OGB to contemplate.
-- Garrett
_______________________________________________
cab-discuss mailing list
cab-discuss at opensolaris dot org
|
|
|
|
|
Posts:
1,695
From:
US
Registered:
4/28/05
|
|
|
|
Non-urgency of replacing Jive (Was: Priorities
results)
Posted:
Mar 14, 2007 12:46 PM
in response to: Stephen Hahn
|
|
Stephen Hahn wrote:
>
> Posted at
>
> http://poll.opensolaris.org/1/
One big surprise to me was the Jive item. My impression has
been that there's broad disdain for Jive and that it was
causing great heartburn for many. Apparently the large
majority of voters either: totally stay away from Jive (and
therefore don't care much what does/doesn't happen to it), or
they use it and they're (at least) OK with it.
Eric
_______________________________________________
cab-discuss mailing list
cab-discuss at opensolaris dot org
|
|
|
|
|
Posts:
5,507
From:
US
Registered:
3/9/05
|
|
|
|
Re: Non-urgency of replacing Jive (Was: Priorities
results)
Posted:
Mar 14, 2007 1:01 PM
in response to: ericb
|
|
Eric Boutilier wrote:
> Stephen Hahn wrote:
>>
>> Posted at
>>
>> http://poll.opensolaris.org/1/
>
> One big surprise to me was the Jive item. My impression has
> been that there's broad disdain for Jive and that it was
> causing great heartburn for many. Apparently the large
> majority of voters either: totally stay away from Jive (and
> therefore don't care much what does/doesn't happen to it), or
> they use it and they're (at least) OK with it.
For my vote, as much as I hate Jive, it's not as big an obstacle
to OpenSolaris success as the many other issues I voted higher
priority.
--
-Alan Coopersmith- alan dot coopersmith at sun dot com
Sun Microsystems, Inc. - X Window System Engineering
_______________________________________________
cab-discuss mailing list
cab-discuss at opensolaris dot org
|
|
|
|
|
Posts:
3,398
From:
Registered:
3/9/05
|
|
|
|
Re: Non-urgency of replacing Jive (Was: Priorities
results)
Posted:
Mar 14, 2007 1:04 PM
in response to: alanc
|
|
>For my vote, as much as I hate Jive, it's not as big an obstacle
>to OpenSolaris success as the many other issues I voted higher
>priority.
Same; I never use Jive.
Casper
_______________________________________________
cab-discuss mailing list
cab-discuss at opensolaris dot org
|
|
|
|
|
Posts:
1,321
From:
US
Registered:
4/27/05
|
|
|
|
Re: Non-urgency of replacing Jive (Was: Priorities
results)
Posted:
Mar 14, 2007 1:06 PM
in response to: casper
|
|
Casper.***@Sun.COM wrote:
>> For my vote, as much as I hate Jive, it's not as big an obstacle
>> to OpenSolaris success as the many other issues I voted higher
>> priority.
>>
>
> Same; I never use Jive.
>
I go to Jive archives occasionally to look in groups I don't read. It
is adequate (barely) to the task.
But compared to the other projects, the group has much bigger fish to fry.
-- Garrett
_______________________________________________
cab-discuss mailing list
cab-discuss at opensolaris dot org
|
|
|
|
|
Posts:
1,539
From:
Cobourg Ontario Canada
Registered:
4/27/05
|
|
|
|
Re: Non-urgency of replacing Jive (Was: Priorities
results)
Posted:
Mar 14, 2007 1:35 PM
in response to: casper
|
|
>
>>For my vote, as much as I hate Jive, it's not as big an obstacle
>>to OpenSolaris success as the many other issues I voted higher
>>priority.
>
> Same; I never use Jive.
I will be really honest and simply say that I do use the maillists which
are based on Mailman. Until this voting process began I did not know what
Jive was. That is how insignificant it is to me.
-
Dennis Clarke
_______________________________________________
cab-discuss mailing list
cab-discuss at opensolaris dot org
|
|
|
|
|
Posts:
1,091
From:
CA
Registered:
4/27/05
|
|
|
|
Re: Non-urgency of replacing Jive (Was: Priorities
results)
Posted:
Mar 14, 2007 7:55 PM
in response to: casper
|
|
On Wed, 14 Mar 2007, Casper.***@Sun.COM wrote:
> Same; I never use Jive.
Same here. As far as I'm concerned, jive is an olde program from years
gone by. To wit:
rich@marrakesh4765# ./jive < x
Same here. What it is, Mama! As far as I'm concerned, JIBE
be an olde honky code fum years gone by. Slap mah fro! To
wit, dig dis:
Ah, dose wuz de days. Right On!
Ahem, I mean "those were the days!". :-)
--
Rich Teer, SCSA, SCNA, SCSECA, OpenSolaris CAB member
CEO,
My Online Home Inventory
Voice: +1 (250) 979-1638
URLs: http://www.rite-group.com/rich
http://www.myonlinehomeinventory.com
_______________________________________________
cab-discuss mailing list
cab-discuss at opensolaris dot org
|
|
|
|
|
Posts:
1,264
From:
US
Registered:
8/5/05
|
|
|
|
Re: Non-urgency of replacing Jive (Was: Priorities
results)
Posted:
Mar 14, 2007 6:17 PM
in response to: ericb
|
|
On 3/14/07, Eric Boutilier <Eric dot Boutilier at sun dot com> wrote:
> One big surprise to me was the Jive item. My impression has
> been that there's broad disdain for Jive and that it was
> causing great heartburn for many. Apparently the large
> majority of voters either: totally stay away from Jive (and
> therefore don't care much what does/doesn't happen to it), or
> they use it and they're (at least) OK with it.
I think that people that are regulars on the lists will subscribe and
be completely oblivious to Jive. Those that are potential "joiners"
of the community are likely to first encounter Jive. Since all of the
people that can vote are regulars in at least one community, it is
quite likely that even if Jive was a their first view of OpenSolaris
discussions, it has been long forgotten.
>From an approachability standpoint, this begs the following questions:
1) Are the primary goals at this time to make life easier for those
that have already committed, or for those that are potential community
members?
2) Does the poll reach the right group to achieve 1?
My personal take is that getting all of the pieces in place to make
supporting a larger and more diverse community are important before
trying to make life easier for the newbies and drive-bys. That is,
the dependence on tools that are only available to Sun employees is
likely to discourage people that are interested in deeper involvement
with OpenSolaris for the Open part rather than the Solaris part.
Mike
--
Mike Gerdts
http://mgerdts.blogspot.com/
_______________________________________________
cab-discuss mailing list
cab-discuss at opensolaris dot org
|
|
|
|
|
James C. McPher...
James.McPherson@Sun....
|
|
|
|
Re: Priorities results
Posted:
Mar 14, 2007 12:51 PM
in response to: Stephen Hahn
|
|
Stephen Hahn wrote:
> Posted at
>
> http://poll.opensolaris.org/1/
>
> Summary:
>
> 1. Deploy a public defect management system
> 2. Deploy a public Request To Integrate (RTI) system
> 3. Deploy a public code review facility on opensolaris.org
> 4. Reorganize the existing Community/Project organization
> 5. Deploy a public wiki on opensolaris.org.
>
> Discuss!
There is no link to the results directly on
poll.opensolaris.org, and there is no splash-page
or banner announcing their existence. There
should be.
cheers,
James C. McPherson
--
Solaris kernel software engineer
Sun Microsystems
_______________________________________________
cab-discuss mailing list
cab-discuss at opensolaris dot org
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Re: Priorities results
Posted:
Mar 14, 2007 1:02 PM
in response to: James C. McPher...
|
|
* James C. McPherson <James dot McPherson at sun dot com> [2007-03-14 12:51]:
> Stephen Hahn wrote:
> > Posted at
> >
> > http://poll.opensolaris.org/1/
> >
> > Summary:
> >
> > 1. Deploy a public defect management system
> > 2. Deploy a public Request To Integrate (RTI) system
> > 3. Deploy a public code review facility on opensolaris.org
> > 4. Reorganize the existing Community/Project organization
> > 5. Deploy a public wiki on opensolaris.org.
> >
> > Discuss!
>
> There is no link to the results directly on
> poll.opensolaris.org, and there is no splash-page
> or banner announcing their existence. There
> should be.
All true; I can only apologize for the finiteness of my abilities.
- Stephen
--
Stephen Hahn, PhD Solaris Kernel Development, Sun Microsystems
stephen dot hahn at sun dot com http://blogs.sun.com/sch/
_______________________________________________
cab-discuss mailing list
cab-discuss at opensolaris dot org
|
|
|
|
|
James C. McPher...
James.McPherson@Sun....
|
|
|
|
Re: Priorities results
Posted:
Mar 14, 2007 1:07 PM
in response to: Stephen Hahn
|
|
Stephen Hahn wrote:
> * James C. McPherson <James dot McPherson at sun dot com> [2007-03-14 12:51]:
>> Stephen Hahn wrote:
>>> Posted at
>>>
>>> http://poll.opensolaris.org/1/
>>>
>>> Summary:
>>>
>>> 1. Deploy a public defect management system
>>> 2. Deploy a public Request To Integrate (RTI) system
>>> 3. Deploy a public code review facility on opensolaris.org
>>> 4. Reorganize the existing Community/Project organization
>>> 5. Deploy a public wiki on opensolaris.org.
>>>
>>> Discuss!
>> There is no link to the results directly on
>> poll.opensolaris.org, and there is no splash-page
>> or banner announcing their existence. There
>> should be.
>
> All true; I can only apologize for the finiteness of my abilities.
I guess we'll have to take away your cape then.
You can keep the rest of your super powers :-)
cheers,
James C. McPherson
--
Solaris kernel software engineer
Sun Microsystems
_______________________________________________
cab-discuss mailing list
cab-discuss at opensolaris dot org
|
|
|
|
|
Posts:
804
From:
Plano, TX
Registered:
4/27/05
|
|
|
|
Re: Priorities results
Posted:
Mar 14, 2007 2:23 PM
in response to: James C. McPher...
|
|
On Thu, 15 Mar 2007, James C. McPherson wrote:
> Stephen Hahn wrote:
> > * James C. McPherson <James dot McPherson at sun dot com> [2007-03-14 12:51]:
> >> Stephen Hahn wrote:
> >>> Posted at
> >>>
> >>> http://poll.opensolaris.org/1/
> >>>
> >>> Summary:
> >>>
> >>> 1. Deploy a public defect management system
> >>> 2. Deploy a public Request To Integrate (RTI) system
> >>> 3. Deploy a public code review facility on opensolaris.org
> >>> 4. Reorganize the existing Community/Project organization
> >>> 5. Deploy a public wiki on opensolaris.org.
> >>>
> >>> Discuss!
> >> There is no link to the results directly on
> >> poll.opensolaris.org, and there is no splash-page
> >> or banner announcing their existence. There
> >> should be.
> >
> > All true; I can only apologize for the finiteness of my abilities.
>
> I guess we'll have to take away your cape then.
>
> You can keep the rest of your super powers :-)
Super powers indeed! :) I'd like to thank Stephen for all the hard work
he did on poll.opensolaris.org in such a short timeframe. The results of
the poll are very useful and have already proven the value of the poll
facility to the entire community.
Now that's said, I'd really like Stephen to apply his Super Powers to #1 -
"Deploy a public defect management system", and do for this, what he
already did (*very* successfully) for the OpenSolaris SCM tool selection
and deployment.
Someone with less super powers will have to handle the website update! :)
Regards,
Al Hopper Logical Approach Inc, Plano, TX. al@logical-approach.com
Voice: 972.379.2133 Fax: 972.379.2134 Timezone: US CDT
OpenSolaris.Org Community Advisory Board (CAB) Member - Apr 2005
OpenSolaris Governing Board (OGB) Member - Feb 2006
_______________________________________________
cab-discuss mailing list
cab-discuss at opensolaris dot org
|
|
|
|
|
Posts:
1,901
From:
NZ
Registered:
6/16/05
|
|
|
|
Re: Priorities results
Posted:
Mar 14, 2007 1:09 PM
in response to: Stephen Hahn
|
|
Stephen Hahn wrote:
> * James C. McPherson <James dot McPherson at sun dot com> [2007-03-14 12:51]:
>> Stephen Hahn wrote:
>>> Posted at
>>>
>>> http://poll.opensolaris.org/1/
>>>
>>> Summary:
>>>
>>> 1. Deploy a public defect management system
>>> 2. Deploy a public Request To Integrate (RTI) system
>>> 3. Deploy a public code review facility on opensolaris.org
>>> 4. Reorganize the existing Community/Project organization
>>> 5. Deploy a public wiki on opensolaris.org.
>>>
>>> Discuss!
>> There is no link to the results directly on
>> poll.opensolaris.org, and there is no splash-page
>> or banner announcing their existence. There
>> should be.
>
> All true; I can only apologize for the finiteness of my abilities.
What can we (me) do to help on this front? It's about time for Stephen to front
up to new hurdles ;)
Glynn
_______________________________________________
cab-discuss mailing list
cab-discuss at opensolaris dot org
|
|
|
|
|
Posts:
5,507
From:
US
Registered:
3/9/05
|
|
|
|
Re: Priorities results
Posted:
Mar 14, 2007 1:04 PM
in response to: Stephen Hahn
|
|
Stephen Hahn wrote:
> Posted at
>
> http://poll.opensolaris.org/1/
Can you explain the format of the "Raw Ballots" link? At first
glance it appears everyone voted for item 1 as top priority, but
it also appears later in many lines too. Is the first column the
poll id and the rest the votes?
--
-Alan Coopersmith- alan dot coopersmith at sun dot com
Sun Microsystems, Inc. - X Window System Engineering
_______________________________________________
cab-discuss mailing list
cab-discuss at opensolaris dot org
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Re: Priorities results
Posted:
Mar 14, 2007 2:18 PM
in response to: alanc
|
|
* Alan Coopersmith <alan dot coopersmith at sun dot com> [2007-03-14 13:04]:
> Stephen Hahn wrote:
> > Posted at
> >
> > http://poll.opensolaris.org/1/
>
> Can you explain the format of the "Raw Ballots" link? At first
> glance it appears everyone voted for item 1 as top priority, but
> it also appears later in many lines too. Is the first column the
> poll id and the rest the votes?
This is the so-called BLT format, which apparently comes from the
Electoral Reform Society in the UK. I've been working from the sample
ballots on http://stv.sf.net (and sites using OpenSTV or its component
modules).
The first column of the ballot section is the ballot's weight.
Here's the docstring comment in emit_blt(), from vote-cat.py:
"""From http://stv.sf.net, we have the BLT format:
4 2 # four candidates are competing for two seats
-2 # Bob has withdrawn (only print if there were withdrawls!)
1 4 1 3 2 0 # first ballot
1 2 4 1 3 0
1 1 4 2 3 0 # The first number is the ballot weight (>= 1).
1 1 2 4 3 0 # The last 0 is an end of ballot marker.
1 1 4 3 0 # Numbers inbetween correspond to the candidates
1 3 2 4 1 0 # on the ballot.
1 3 4 1 2 0
1 3 4 1 2 0 # Chuck, Diane, Amy, Bob
1 4 3 2 0
1 2 3 4 1 0 # last ballot
0 # end of ballots marker
"Amy" # candidate 1
"Bob" # candidate 2
"Chuck" # candidate 3
"Diane" # candidate 4
"Gardening Club Election" # title
where the '#' characters are actually illegal. We don't presently offer
withdrawls. Our output is thus
<len(question.answers)> <positions>
<withdrawls>
<ballots>
0
"<question.answers[0]"
"<question.answers[1]"
...
"<poll.summary>: <question.description>"
which we send to standard output.
"""
- Stephen
--
Stephen Hahn, PhD Solaris Kernel Development, Sun Microsystems
stephen dot hahn at sun dot com http://blogs.sun.com/sch/
_______________________________________________
cab-discuss mailing list
cab-discuss at opensolaris dot org
|
|
|
|
|
Posts:
1,901
From:
NZ
Registered:
6/16/05
|
|
|
|
Re: Priorities results
Posted:
Mar 14, 2007 1:06 PM
in response to: Stephen Hahn
|
|
Stephen Hahn wrote:
> Posted at
>
> http://poll.opensolaris.org/1/
>
> Summary:
>
> 1. Deploy a public defect management system
> 2. Deploy a public Request To Integrate (RTI) system
> 3. Deploy a public code review facility on opensolaris.org
> 4. Reorganize the existing Community/Project organization
> 5. Deploy a public wiki on opensolaris.org.
>
> Discuss!
Surprised by a couple of things
- My inability to realize that we were only voting for 5 places
- Jive getting eliminated first
- Despite having 3 and 5 available elsewhere, it seems people
want an official resource
- Tonic folks, ignore 2-5 for now, and concentrate on 1. If I
understand the numbers correctly, it's by far and away our
largest priority
- Can anything be said about the voter distribution based on
the polls? I'm surprised RTI is as high as it is.
- Also vaguely indicates that no on seems keen to actually
step up to the plate and be part of a wider infrastructure
team to work on this stuff
- A turnout of 88 people. Would be interesting to see what
impact (if any) the extension and/or mail nag had. We're
still a long way short of getting 50% to vote.
Glynn
_______________________________________________
cab-discuss mailing list
cab-discuss at opensolaris dot org
|
|
|
|
|
Posts:
818
From:
San Francisco CA US
Registered:
3/9/05
|
|
|
|
Re: Priorities results
Posted:
Mar 14, 2007 1:29 PM
in response to: gman
|
|
On Thu, Mar 15, 2007 at 09:06:43AM +1300, Glynn Foster wrote:
> - Despite having 3 and 5 available elsewhere, it seems people
> want an official resource
Taken as a whole, these results suggest that what people are really
looking for is an integrated end-to-end open workflow. That is, for
tools that aid rather than hinder and obscure. It's not surprising
that code review would be a part of that.
> - Tonic folks, ignore 2-5 for now, and concentrate on 1. If I
> understand the numbers correctly, it's by far and away our
> largest priority
I'm a bit confused by your reaction here, as I thought this was
supposed to be about the OGB's priorities. While the Tonic team has
accomplished much and continues to work hard, it will no longer be
directly responsible for any of these tasks. We cannot wait 10 years
for the underresourced Tonic team to implement these features one by
one, dragging Sun tools into the open as funding permits. Instead, we
should conduct a process similar to that being used to evaluate and
implement SCM for each missing piece of functionality. If the Tonic
team can commit resources in a particular area, it's welcome and
encouraged to submit a proposal. If not, someone else will need to
step in. Sun management must decide, and express through the
allocation of resources, how much importance it attaches to the
continued use of each of the existing closed tools.
> - Can anything be said about the voter distribution based on
> the polls? I'm surprised RTI is as high as it is.
As am I, but only because the consolidations would lack the ability to
enforce integration requirements under the proposed constitution
without CG restructuring.
> - Also vaguely indicates that no on seems keen to actually
> step up to the plate and be part of a wider infrastructure
> team to work on this stuff
That conclusion is valid only if one assumes that the Tonic team is
responsible for delivering the goods. It isn't.
--
Keith M Wesolowski "Sir, we're surrounded!"
FishWorks "Excellent; we can attack in any direction!"
_______________________________________________
cab-discuss mailing list
cab-discuss at opensolaris dot org
|
|
|
|
|
Posts:
1,901
From:
NZ
Registered:
6/16/05
|
|
|
|
Re: Priorities results
Posted:
Mar 14, 2007 1:48 PM
in response to: wesolows
|
|
Keith M Wesolowski wrote:
>> - Tonic folks, ignore 2-5 for now, and concentrate on 1. If I
>> understand the numbers correctly, it's by far and away our
>> largest priority
>
> I'm a bit confused by your reaction here, as I thought this was
> supposed to be about the OGB's priorities. While the Tonic team has
> accomplished much and continues to work hard, it will no longer be
> directly responsible for any of these tasks. We cannot wait 10 years
> for the underresourced Tonic team to implement these features one by
> one, dragging Sun tools into the open as funding permits. Instead, we
> should conduct a process similar to that being used to evaluate and
> implement SCM for each missing piece of functionality. If the Tonic
> team can commit resources in a particular area, it's welcome and
> encouraged to submit a proposal. If not, someone else will need to
> step in. Sun management must decide, and express through the
> allocation of resources, how much importance it attaches to the
> continued use of each of the existing closed tools.
Hrm, that was on the assumption that the current web team == Tonic, which I know
it technically isn't. But yeah, on reading back through it, it's a pretty
foolish comment to make. I guess what I'm saying is that we now have to look
very seriously at whether it will be possible to release our current tool chain
(including bugster). If that's not looking likely [1], then you're absolutely
right, we shouldn't hold off for that to magically happen and continue on
working and evaluating alternatives.
Glynn
[1] And really, I'm disappointed at the severe lack of information that has
been floated on the public mailing lists about it. I *know* (or heard
rumours) there is work/discussion going on behind the scenes, but I don't
know the status. It's never going to be a community project to replace
the tools if all the information about them is currently behind a wall.
_______________________________________________
cab-discuss mailing list
cab-discuss at opensolaris dot org
|
|
|
|
|
Posts:
824
From:
US
Registered:
3/9/05
|
|
|
|
Re: Priorities results
Posted:
Mar 16, 2007 2:18 PM
in response to: wesolows
|
|
>>>>> "Keith" == Keith M Wesolowski <Keith> writes:
Glynn> - Also vaguely indicates that no on seems keen to actually
Glynn> step up to the plate and be part of a wider infrastructure team to
Glynn> work on this stuff
Keith> That conclusion is valid only if one assumes that the Tonic team
Keith> is responsible for delivering the goods. It isn't.
Well, yes and no. The Tonic team currently owns the webapp, the
Jive/Mailman gateway glue, etc. It's true that we don't own any of the
bug-related software.
mike
_______________________________________________
cab-discuss mailing list
cab-discuss at opensolaris dot org
|
|
|
|
|
