|
Replies:
92
-
Last Post:
Jun 5, 2007 7:31 AM
by: carlsonj
|
|
|
Posts:
1,901
From:
NZ
Registered:
6/16/05
|
|
|
|
Project Proposal - (what is/was Indiana)
Posted:
May 30, 2007 3:41 PM
|
|
Hey,
Here's the project proposal that should have been out a long while back
(apologies, I'm happy to take the blame on this one). Before anyone gets too
caught up in how little the proposal actually covers, I intend to follow up with
my thoughts if and when the project alias gets created - I'd like that
discussion to be far more focused than opensolaris-discuss has been.
Glynn
==
1.1 Summary
This project proposes to create an OpenSolaris binary distribution,
previously known as 'Project Indiana'.
1.2 Description
This project proposes to create an OpenSolaris binary distribution
with a long term goal of increasing the userbase and growing
mindshare in the volume market by providing easy access to the
technology created within the OpenSolaris community.
A 6 monthly time based release schedule will focus energies in producing
a single CD install, and putting OpenSolaris on a path to being a
distribution as well as a source base. With a focus on the user experience,
it is hoped that with wide distribution, the OpenSolaris ecosystem will
grow, providing valuable feedback to the project.
This project is expected to be long term, with regular releases and
regular goals with a focus on closing the familiarity gap for new
users of the platform, but also compatible to Solaris users today.
This project will have an emphasis on release engineering process
and infrastructure initially, coupled with some user visible
improvements to the existing pain points within Solaris.
1.3 Sponsors
This project has a lot of overlap with a number of Community Groups in
terms of technology but has particularly strong links to the
'Distributions & Packaging' Community Group.
1.4 Involvement
There is a strong intention for this to be a community grass roots
project, with open contribution. We hope for this project to be
consensus driven, though ultimately the project leads will need
to dictate direction if that proves unfeasible for delivering
a timely release. 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.
1.5 Related Projects
This project will, over time, start to include many of the existing
projects that are already being worked upon and stable enough to
include under the opensolaris.org umbrella, encouraging the best
innovation within the community.
1.6 Other
With this proposal there is an opportunity to create a base
distribution that other community groups can re-distribute for
their own needs. This distribution proposal hopes to draw
together existing innovations across the OpenSolaris
community, encouraging collaboration and communication.
_______________________________________________
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
opensolaris-discuss at opensolaris dot org
|
|
|
Posts:
818
From:
San Francisco CA US
Registered:
3/9/05
|
|
|
|
Re: [ogb-discuss] Project Proposal - (what is/was
Indiana)
Posted:
May 30, 2007 4:16 PM
in response to: gman
|
|
On Thu, May 31, 2007 at 10:41:52AM +1200, Glynn Foster wrote:
> Here's the project proposal that should have been out a long while back
> (apologies, I'm happy to take the blame on this one). Before anyone gets too
> caught up in how little the proposal actually covers, I intend to follow up with
> my thoughts if and when the project alias gets created - I'd like that
> discussion to be far more focused than opensolaris-discuss has been.
The process requires that this be sent to one or more community groups
for sponsorship consideration - have you sent it to the Distributions
and Packaging Group? The Constitution and OGB/2007/001 require any
project proposal to come from a Group.
If a Group sent us this request, I believe we would have to send it
back for revision, for two reasons:
1. It is incomplete. It does not include a list of Participants
acting as leaders, and the section on related projects is vague and
could be interpreted in several ways that would preclude this effort
from being represented as a project ("including" other projects is
more properly a feature of a consolidation than a project;
distributions aggregate consolidations). It's for the sponsoring
Group(s) to determine whether the description of the "manner in which
it will [solve problem(s)]" is sufficient, but if submitted as-is I
would be skeptical that this requirement has been met, even
superficially.
2. The clause "and putting OpenSolaris on a path to being a
distribution as well as a source base" would place this project
outside the scope of any extant Community Group; it reflects a desire
to, in effect, change what the entire community is. More to the
point, it also reflects a desire for "more equal than others"
standing, something not generally contemplated by existing
institutions. However, it's not as bad as that, because this
statement does not actually seem to bear on the proposed work itself.
The proposal would not suffer by its removal.
--
Keith M Wesolowski "Sir, we're surrounded!"
FishWorks "Excellent; we can attack in any direction!"
_______________________________________________
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
opensolaris-discuss at opensolaris dot org
|
|
|
|
|
Posts:
5,504
From:
US
Registered:
3/9/05
|
|
|
|
Re: Re: [ogb-discuss] Project Proposal - (what is/was
Indiana)
Posted:
May 30, 2007 4:24 PM
in response to: wesolows
|
|
Keith M Wesolowski wrote:
> The process requires that this be sent to one or more community groups
> for sponsorship consideration - have you sent it to the Distributions
> and Packaging Group? The Constitution and OGB/2007/001 require any
> project proposal to come from a Group.
Are we actually following 2007/001 now? I know we approved it, but
Eric's still been creating Projects based on the old guidelines.
--
-Alan Coopersmith- alan dot coopersmith at sun dot com
Sun Microsystems, Inc. - X Window System Engineering
_______________________________________________
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
opensolaris-discuss at opensolaris dot org
|
|
|
|
|
Posts:
818
From:
San Francisco CA US
Registered:
3/9/05
|
|
|
|
Re: Re: [ogb-discuss] Project Proposal - (what is/was
Indiana)
Posted:
May 30, 2007 4:37 PM
in response to: alanc
|
|
On Wed, May 30, 2007 at 04:24:40PM -0700, Alan Coopersmith wrote:
> Keith M Wesolowski wrote:
> >The process requires that this be sent to one or more community groups
> >for sponsorship consideration - have you sent it to the Distributions
> >and Packaging Group? The Constitution and OGB/2007/001 require any
> >project proposal to come from a Group.
>
> Are we actually following 2007/001 now? I know we approved it, but
> Eric's still been creating Projects based on the old guidelines.
I assumed that those projects were proposed before we approved the new
process. Certainly any project being proposed today should not be
using the old process; even without the tweaks we're contemplating to
OGB/2007/001 (which I hope we'll approve at next week's meeting), it's
much better than what we had before and I see no reason not to use it.
--
Keith M Wesolowski "Sir, we're surrounded!"
FishWorks "Excellent; we can attack in any direction!"
_______________________________________________
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
opensolaris-discuss at opensolaris dot org
|
|
|
|
|
Posts:
689
From:
GB
Registered:
5/18/05
|
|
|
|
Re: Re: [ogb-discuss] Project Proposal - (what is/was
Indiana)
Posted:
May 30, 2007 6:31 PM
in response to: wesolows
|
|
On May 31, 2007, at 00:37, Keith M Wesolowski wrote:
> On Wed, May 30, 2007 at 04:24:40PM -0700, Alan Coopersmith wrote:
>
>> Keith M Wesolowski wrote:
>>> The process requires that this be sent to one or more community
>>> groups
>>> for sponsorship consideration - have you sent it to the
>>> Distributions
>>> and Packaging Group? The Constitution and OGB/2007/001 require any
>>> project proposal to come from a Group.
>>
>> Are we actually following 2007/001 now? I know we approved it, but
>> Eric's still been creating Projects based on the old guidelines.
>
> I assumed that those projects were proposed before we approved the new
> process. Certainly any project being proposed today should not be
> using the old process; even without the tweaks we're contemplating to
> OGB/2007/001 (which I hope we'll approve at next week's meeting), it's
> much better than what we had before and I see no reason not to use it.
Might be worth checking since quite a few projects seem to have gone
through just lately, a cursory glance provides this list of projects
that seem to have been proposed since the Constitution was ratified
and finalised after the new process was approved by the OGB on April
25 (dates are of Eric's confirmation mail):
OpenSolaris Programming Contest in China Academic Developers May 21,
2007 15:24:03 BDT
Virtual Network Machines May 21, 2007 15:20:50 BDT
Emulex Fibre Channel Device Driver May 30, 2007 20:51:34 BDT
Port OpenSolaris to System z May 24, 2007 15:22:24 BDT
Full FMA support for generic x86 machine-check architecture May 14,
2007 19:31:05 BDT
Sensor Abstraction Layer for the Solaris Fault Manager May 1, 2007
02:07:46 BDT
Project Proposal: SAM-QFS April 27, 2007 15:17:17 BDT
Proposal for IPoIB performance project April 27, 2007 15:17:01 BDT
I expect some have followed the process but it's hard to tell in
several places (even assuming I understand it). This seems to be the
first to be bounced.
S.
_______________________________________________
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
opensolaris-discuss at opensolaris dot org
|
|
|
|
|
Posts:
321
From:
GB
Registered:
1/18/06
|
|
|
|
Re: Re: [ogb-discuss] Project Proposal - (what is/was
Indiana)
Posted:
May 31, 2007 10:41 PM
in response to: wesolows
To: OpenSolaris » discuss
|
|
> I assumed that those projects were proposed before we
> approved the new
> process. Certainly any project being proposed today
> should not be
> using the old process; even without the tweaks we're
> contemplating to
> OGB/2007/001 (which I hope we'll approve at next
> week's meeting), it's
> much better than what we had before and I see no
> reason not to use it.
>
Maybe you should change the wording on the projects page, before you start using OGB/2007/001. This page describes what the community is supposed to do to propose a new project. Until this wording is changed, I do not see why any project proposal should follow any other format.
Doug
Current procedure from the projects page -
"The process for requesting a new project requires that a community member write a proposal to the opensolaris-discuss list and at least one other community member agree with the proposal. If the proposal doesn't garner a seconder within 30 days, it will be considered void. The process is intentionally lightweight because we expect that the bulk of new collaborative efforts will be projects with many growing into full communities comprised of one or more projects."
|
|
|
|
|
Posts:
1,695
From:
US
Registered:
4/28/05
|
|
|
|
Re: Project Proposal - (what is/was Indiana)
Posted:
May 30, 2007 5:02 PM
in response to: alanc
|
|
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-discuss at opensolaris dot org
|
|
|
|
|
Posts:
1,695
From:
US
Registered:
4/28/05
|
|
|
|
Re: Project Proposal - (what is/was Indiana)
Posted:
May 30, 2007 4:57 PM
in response to: wesolows
|
|
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 project instantiation draft proposal will require
that this be sent... etc."
_______________________________________________
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
opensolaris-discuss at opensolaris dot org
|
|
|
|
|
Posts:
818
From:
San Francisco CA US
Registered:
3/9/05
|
|
|
|
Re: [ogb-discuss] Re: Project Proposal - (what
is/was Indiana)
Posted:
May 30, 2007 5:54 PM
in response to: ericb
|
|
On Wed, May 30, 2007 at 06:57:32PM -0500, Eric Boutilier wrote:
> 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 project instantiation draft proposal will require
> that this be sent... etc."
It was approved in the public and open April 25th meeting, the minutes
of which reflect that approval and were posted as required.
Subsequent feedback is a basis for modifying the policy; it is not a
barrier to its implementation. No one read the final document and the
minutes and said "This is not the policy we approved; a new vote is
needed." We simply cannot allow cycles of feedback, however
constructive and worthwhile, to delay indefinitely the adoption and
implementation of a policy that has already been approved in
accordance with the Constitution.
In short: The policy was approved by the OGB and that approval was
communicated to the community in accordance with the Constitution. It
is in effect, and project teams are expected to follow it.
--
Keith M Wesolowski "Sir, we're surrounded!"
FishWorks "Excellent; we can attack in any direction!"
_______________________________________________
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
opensolaris-discuss at opensolaris dot org
|
|
|
|
|
Posts:
1,695
From:
US
Registered:
4/28/05
|
|
|
|
Re: [ogb-discuss] Re: Project Proposal - (what
is/was Indiana)
Posted:
May 31, 2007 1:50 AM
in response to: wesolows
|
|
On Wed, 30 May 2007, Keith M Wesolowski wrote:
> On Wed, May 30, 2007 at 06:57:32PM -0500, Eric Boutilier wrote:
>
>> 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 project instantiation draft proposal will require
>> that this be sent... etc."
>
> It was approved in the public and open April 25th meeting, the minutes
> of which reflect that approval and were posted as required.
> Subsequent feedback is a basis for modifying the policy; it is not a
> barrier to its implementation. No one read the final document and the
> minutes and said "This is not the policy we approved; a new vote is
> needed." We simply cannot allow cycles of feedback, however
> constructive and worthwhile, to delay indefinitely the adoption and
> implementation of a policy that has already been approved in
> accordance with the Constitution.
Dude, you need to lose the "Chief Justice" attitude.
OK, I'll forgo debating your interpretation of those minutes
and accept it.
Twice this month, for the creation of new projects, I posted
the following:
"Also copying OGB... FYI, we're moving ahead with with the setup of this
project under the old process. The 2-business-day discussion period has
been satisfied, it has sponsorship of the [sponsoring community] and
has been seconded."
Your and the other members' non-response contributed (really
badly, IMO) to the confusion.
Eric
_______________________________________________
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
opensolaris-discuss at opensolaris dot org
|
|
|
|
|
Posts:
818
From:
San Francisco CA US
Registered:
3/9/05
|
|
|
|
Re: [ogb-discuss] Re: Project Proposal - (what
is/was Indiana)
Posted:
May 31, 2007 8:36 AM
in response to: ericb
|
|
On Thu, May 31, 2007 at 03:50:07AM -0500, Eric Boutilier wrote:
> Twice this month, for the creation of new projects, I posted
> the following:
>
> "Also copying OGB... FYI, we're moving ahead with with the setup of this
> project under the old process. The 2-business-day discussion period has
> been satisfied, it has sponsorship of the [sponsoring community] and
> has been seconded."
>
> Your and the other members' non-response contributed (really
> badly, IMO) to the confusion.
What response should we have made? Although our Constitution doesn't
explicitly preclude it, common sense says we shouldn't make ex post
facto policies. So if someone proposed a project before the new
policy came into effect, what are we supposed to say when it times
out? "No, don't do that; you have to go follow this new thing that
didn't exist"? Talk about bureaucratic runaround.
--
Keith M Wesolowski "Sir, we're surrounded!"
FishWorks "Excellent; we can attack in any direction!"
_______________________________________________
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
opensolaris-discuss at opensolaris dot org
|
|
|
|
|
Posts:
1,695
From:
US
Registered:
4/28/05
|
|
|
|
Re: [ogb-discuss] Re: Project Proposal - (what
is/was Indiana)
Posted:
May 31, 2007 8:58 AM
in response to: wesolows
|
|
On Thu, 31 May 2007, Keith M Wesolowski wrote:
> On Thu, May 31, 2007 at 03:50:07AM -0500, Eric Boutilier wrote:
>
>> Twice this month, for the creation of new projects, I posted
>> the following:
>>
>> "Also copying OGB... FYI, we're moving ahead with with the setup of this
>> project under the old process. The 2-business-day discussion period has
>> been satisfied, it has sponsorship of the [sponsoring community] and
>> has been seconded."
>>
>> Your and the other members' non-response contributed (really
>> badly, IMO) to the confusion.
>
> What response should we have made?
That's easy.
"Eric, All -- The old process is being used as if the OGB has not put the
new process in force. Please see (etc).
As far as I'm concerned, the OGB _has_ put the new process in force.
-Keith"
_______________________________________________
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
opensolaris-discuss at opensolaris dot org
|
|
|
|
|
Posts:
1,109
From:
Registered:
6/14/05
|
|
|
|
Re: Re: [ogb-discuss] Re: Project Proposal - (what
is/was Indiana)
Posted:
May 31, 2007 9:34 PM
in response to: ericb
|
|
On Thu, 31 May 2007, Eric Boutilier wrote:
> As far as I'm concerned, the OGB _has_ put the new process in force.
That means that it was voted on at a meeting but must be off in a faq or
minutes somewhere that each community member needs to track down.
Has the process passed a vote from the OGB, and if so, can you folks let
the community know in some type of public announcement?
Maybe I missed one if it was done, but I don't remember seeing that the
constitution and/or process was approved.
--
Alan DuBoff - Solaris x86 IHV/OEM Group
_______________________________________________
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
opensolaris-discuss at opensolaris dot org
|
|
|
|
|
Posts:
1,695
From:
US
Registered:
4/28/05
|
|
|
|
Re: Re: [ogb-discuss] Re: Project Proposal - (what
is/was Indiana)
Posted:
Jun 1, 2007 4:40 AM
in response to: aland
|
|
On Thu, 31 May 2007, Alan DuBoff wrote:
> On Thu, 31 May 2007, Eric Boutilier wrote:
>
>> As far as I'm concerned, the OGB _has_ put the new process in force.
Correction Alan.
That was not me, it was Keith saying that.
Eric
_______________________________________________
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
opensolaris-discuss at opensolaris dot org
|
|
|
|
|
Posts:
818
From:
San Francisco CA US
Registered:
3/9/05
|
|
|
|
Re: Re: [ogb-discuss] Re: Project Proposal - (what
is/was Indiana)
Posted:
Jun 1, 2007 8:32 AM
in response to: aland
|
|
On Thu, May 31, 2007 at 09:34:07PM -0700, Alan DuBoff wrote:
> That means that it was voted on at a meeting but must be off in a faq or
> minutes somewhere that each community member needs to track down.
A draft of the policy plus a few changes was approved at the 25 April
meeting, and the minutes of that meeting, as well as the completed
policy, were published. At the 2 May meeting, the actual changes were
then agreed to be those we had approved, although the minutes from
that meeting were not published in a timely fashion. All three of the
discussion of the policy, the meetings, and the minutes of the meeting
at which the policy was approved were open to the entire OpenSolaris
community. Due process was most definitely followed. I'm sorry that
more people did not participate in that process.
However, you are correct in saying that our communication of the new
policy has been lacking. I am the person responsible for rectifying
that, and I have been tardy in doing so. For that, I apologise.
> Has the process passed a vote from the OGB, and if so, can you folks let
> the community know in some type of public announcement?
Yes, and yes.
> Maybe I missed one if it was done, but I don't remember seeing that the
> constitution and/or process was approved.
The Constitution was approved by the Membership in a formal poll in
March, and those results were announced widely.
--
Keith M Wesolowski "Sir, we're surrounded!"
FishWorks "Excellent; we can attack in any direction!"
_______________________________________________
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
opensolaris-discuss at opensolaris dot org
|
|
|
|
|
Posts:
1,109
From:
Registered:
6/14/05
|
|
|
|
Re: Re: [ogb-discuss] Re: Project Proposal - (what
is/was Indiana)
Posted:
Jun 4, 2007 12:05 PM
in response to: wesolows
|
|
On Fri, 1 Jun 2007, Keith M Wesolowski wrote:
> On Thu, May 31, 2007 at 09:34:07PM -0700, Alan DuBoff wrote:
>
>> That means that it was voted on at a meeting but must be off in a faq or
>> minutes somewhere that each community member needs to track down.
>
> A draft of the policy plus a few changes was approved at the 25 April
> meeting, and the minutes of that meeting, as well as the completed
> policy, were published. At the 2 May meeting, the actual changes were
> then agreed to be those we had approved, although the minutes from
> that meeting were not published in a timely fashion. All three of the
> discussion of the policy, the meetings, and the minutes of the meeting
> at which the policy was approved were open to the entire OpenSolaris
> community. Due process was most definitely followed. I'm sorry that
> more people did not participate in that process.
>
> However, you are correct in saying that our communication of the new
> policy has been lacking. I am the person responsible for rectifying
> that, and I have been tardy in doing so. For that, I apologise.
I wasn't trying to point any fingers, just trying to figure out how I (as
a community member) could get that information.
In the past I've been told it's because I wasn't subscribed to the proper
community, or that I had not read some specific piece of FAQ posted
somewhere, and even in one case I had not responeded to a message sent out
to opensolaris-discuss.
I understand we're growing, and as such some of this takes time.
>> Has the process passed a vote from the OGB, and if so, can you folks let
>> the community know in some type of public announcement?
>
> Yes, and yes.
>
>> Maybe I missed one if it was done, but I don't remember seeing that the
>> constitution and/or process was approved.
>
> The Constitution was approved by the Membership in a formal poll in
> March, and those results were announced widely.
Thanks for your response, let's hope the communication gets better as we
move forward.
--
Alan DuBoff - Solaris x86 IHV/OEM Group
_______________________________________________
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
opensolaris-discuss at opensolaris dot org
|
|
|
|
|
Posts:
293
From:
US
Registered:
4/26/05
|
|
|
|
Re: [ogb-discuss] Re: Project Proposal - (what
is/was Indiana)
Posted:
May 31, 2007 7:00 AM
in response to: wesolows
|
|
Keith M Wesolowski wrote:
> On Wed, May 30, 2007 at 06:57:32PM -0500, Eric Boutilier wrote:
>
>
>>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 project instantiation draft proposal will require
>>that this be sent... etc."
>
>
> It was approved in the public and open April 25th meeting, the minutes
> of which reflect that approval and were posted as required.
> Subsequent feedback is a basis for modifying the policy; it is not a
> barrier to its implementation. No one read the final document and the
> minutes and said "This is not the policy we approved; a new vote is
> needed." We simply cannot allow cycles of feedback, however
> constructive and worthwhile, to delay indefinitely the adoption and
> implementation of a policy that has already been approved in
> accordance with the Constitution.
>
> In short: The policy was approved by the OGB and that approval was
> communicated to the community in accordance with the Constitution. It
> is in effect, and project teams are expected to follow it.
I'm sorry, but this doesn't work.
You can not expect community members to read all minutes from all OGB
meetings (which don't happen regularly) to see if decisions were made
that change policies and processes for OpenSolaris.
We have an -announce alias. We have process directions on various web
pages.
How does it make any sense to say that something approved in a meeting
and captured in minutes is now policy that everyone has to follow?
When there was no announcement, there are no new directions posted, and
Eric's repeated emails saying he was continuing to set up projects using
the old process were ignored.
Bonnie
_______________________________________________
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
opensolaris-discuss at opensolaris dot org
|
|
|
|
|
Posts:
1,992
From:
US
Registered:
3/9/05
|
|
|
|
Re: Re: [ogb-discuss] Re: Project Proposal - (what
is/was Indiana)
Posted:
May 31, 2007 8:04 AM
in response to: bjc
|
|
Bonnie Corwin wrote:
> Keith M Wesolowski wrote:
>> On Wed, May 30, 2007 at 06:57:32PM -0500, Eric Boutilier wrote:
>>
>>
>>> 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 project instantiation draft proposal will require
>>> that this be sent... etc."
>>
>> It was approved in the public and open April 25th meeting, the minutes
>> of which reflect that approval and were posted as required.
>> Subsequent feedback is a basis for modifying the policy; it is not a
>> barrier to its implementation. No one read the final document and the
>> minutes and said "This is not the policy we approved; a new vote is
>> needed." We simply cannot allow cycles of feedback, however
>> constructive and worthwhile, to delay indefinitely the adoption and
>> implementation of a policy that has already been approved in
>> accordance with the Constitution.
>>
>> In short: The policy was approved by the OGB and that approval was
>> communicated to the community in accordance with the Constitution. It
>> is in effect, and project teams are expected to follow it.
>
> I'm sorry, but this doesn't work.
>
> You can not expect community members to read all minutes from all OGB
> meetings (which don't happen regularly) to see if decisions were made
> that change policies and processes for OpenSolaris.
>
> We have an -announce alias. We have process directions on various web
> pages.
>
> How does it make any sense to say that something approved in a meeting
> and captured in minutes is now policy that everyone has to follow?
> When there was no announcement, there are no new directions posted, and
> Eric's repeated emails saying he was continuing to set up projects using
> the old process were ignored.
>
I'm with Bonnie here. So far, it seems that the OGB expects all of us
to follow the discussions on ogb-discuss in order to know about
significant changes in policy. I'm also perturbed at the amount of
discussion that's apparently occurred about re-organizing communities,
yet as a leader of a community which is apparently subject to some
change here, I've had *zero* communication with the OGB on the topic.
Dave
_______________________________________________
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
opensolaris-discuss at opensolaris dot org
|
|
|
|
|
Posts:
1,156
From:
US
Registered:
3/9/05
|
|
|
|
Re: Re: [ogb-discuss] Re: Project Proposal - (what
is/was Indiana)
Posted:
Jun 1, 2007 8:47 AM
in response to: dminer
|
|
Dave Miner wrote:
> Bonnie Corwin wrote:
>> Keith M Wesolowski wrote:
>>> On Wed, May 30, 2007 at 06:57:32PM -0500, Eric Boutilier wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>> 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 project instantiation draft proposal will require
>>>> that this be sent... etc."
>>>
>>> It was approved in the public and open April 25th meeting, the minutes
>>> of which reflect that approval and were posted as required.
>>> Subsequent feedback is a basis for modifying the policy; it is not a
>>> barrier to its implementation. No one read the final document and the
>>> minutes and said "This is not the policy we approved; a new vote is
>>> needed." We simply cannot allow cycles of feedback, however
>>> constructive and worthwhile, to delay indefinitely the adoption and
>>> implementation of a policy that has already been approved in
>>> accordance with the Constitution.
>>>
>>> In short: The policy was approved by the OGB and that approval was
>>> communicated to the community in accordance with the Constitution. It
>>> is in effect, and project teams are expected to follow it.
>>
>> I'm sorry, but this doesn't work.
>>
>> You can not expect community members to read all minutes from all OGB
>> meetings (which don't happen regularly) to see if decisions were made
>> that change policies and processes for OpenSolaris.
>>
>> We have an -announce alias. We have process directions on various web
>> pages.
>>
>> How does it make any sense to say that something approved in a meeting
>> and captured in minutes is now policy that everyone has to follow?
>> When there was no announcement, there are no new directions posted,
>> and Eric's repeated emails saying he was continuing to set up projects
>> using the old process were ignored.
>>
>
> I'm with Bonnie here. So far, it seems that the OGB expects all of us
> to follow the discussions on ogb-discuss in order to know about
> significant changes in policy. I'm also perturbed at the amount of
> discussion that's apparently occurred about re-organizing communities,
> yet as a leader of a community which is apparently subject to some
> change here, I've had *zero* communication with the OGB on the topic.
That's my fault; my original proposal got lots of feedback, and I need
to make some fairly substantial revisions.
I've been out for a month (wedding/honeymoon/vacation), so nothing has
happened in the past month re: this proposal. I need to incorporate a
lot of the feedback and start discussions with the community groups
regarding the matter.
cheers,
steve
--
stephen lau // stevel at sun dot com | 650.786.0845 | http://whacked.net
opensolaris // solaris kernel development
_______________________________________________
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
opensolaris-discuss at opensolaris dot org
|
|
|
|
|
Posts:
1,992
From:
US
Registered:
3/9/05
|
|
|
|
Re: Re: [ogb-discuss] Re: Project Proposal - (what
is/was Indiana)
Posted:
Jun 1, 2007 8:57 AM
in response to: stevel
|
|
Stephen Lau wrote:
> Dave Miner wrote:
>> Bonnie Corwin wrote:
>>> Keith M Wesolowski wrote:
>>>> On Wed, May 30, 2007 at 06:57:32PM -0500, Eric Boutilier wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> 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 project instantiation draft proposal will require
>>>>> that this be sent... etc."
>>>>
>>>> It was approved in the public and open April 25th meeting, the minutes
>>>> of which reflect that approval and were posted as required.
>>>> Subsequent feedback is a basis for modifying the policy; it is not a
>>>> barrier to its implementation. No one read the final document and the
>>>> minutes and said "This is not the policy we approved; a new vote is
>>>> needed." We simply cannot allow cycles of feedback, however
>>>> constructive and worthwhile, to delay indefinitely the adoption and
>>>> implementation of a policy that has already been approved in
>>>> accordance with the Constitution.
>>>>
>>>> In short: The policy was approved by the OGB and that approval was
>>>> communicated to the community in accordance with the Constitution. It
>>>> is in effect, and project teams are expected to follow it.
>>>
>>> I'm sorry, but this doesn't work.
>>>
>>> You can not expect community members to read all minutes from all OGB
>>> meetings (which don't happen regularly) to see if decisions were made
>>> that change policies and processes for OpenSolaris.
>>>
>>> We have an -announce alias. We have process directions on various
>>> web pages.
>>>
>>> How does it make any sense to say that something approved in a
>>> meeting and captured in minutes is now policy that everyone has to
>>> follow? When there was no announcement, there are no new directions
>>> posted, and Eric's repeated emails saying he was continuing to set up
>>> projects using the old process were ignored.
>>>
>>
>> I'm with Bonnie here. So far, it seems that the OGB expects all of us
>> to follow the discussions on ogb-discuss in order to know about
>> significant changes in policy. I'm also perturbed at the amount of
>> discussion that's apparently occurred about re-organizing communities,
>> yet as a leader of a community which is apparently subject to some
>> change here, I've had *zero* communication with the OGB on the topic.
>
> That's my fault; my original proposal got lots of feedback, and I need
> to make some fairly substantial revisions.
>
> I've been out for a month (wedding/honeymoon/vacation), so nothing has
> happened in the past month re: this proposal. I need to incorporate a
> lot of the feedback and start discussions with the community groups
> regarding the matter.
>
Thanks for following up, Steve, I'd forgotten you were gallivanting the
globe. You are all pretty communicative individually in my experience,
so I found the situation somewhat mystifying. One suggestion which may
be helpful (it would at least help me ;-) would be to set up an RSS feed
for OGB meeting minutes (and of course publish them in a timely fashion).
Dave
_______________________________________________
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
opensolaris-discuss at opensolaris dot org
|
|
|
|
|
Posts:
5,504
From:
US
Registered:
3/9/05
|
|
|
|
Re: [ogb-discuss] Re: Project Proposal - (what
is/was Indiana)
Posted:
May 31, 2007 8:45 AM
in response to: bjc
|
|
Bonnie Corwin wrote:
> I'm sorry, but this doesn't work.
>
> You can not expect community members to read all minutes from all OGB
> meetings (which don't happen regularly) to see if decisions were made
> that change policies and processes for OpenSolaris.
>
> We have an -announce alias. We have process directions on various web
> pages.
Right - I don't think that was the intent of the entire OGB, as
publicizing the policy was noted as one of the required remaining
steps for implementation:
http://mail.opensolaris.org/pipermail/ogb-discuss/2007-April/000416.html
--
-Alan Coopersmith- alan dot coopersmith at sun dot com
Sun Microsystems, Inc. - X Window System Engineering
_______________________________________________
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
opensolaris-discuss at opensolaris dot org
|
|
|
|
|
Posts:
1,109
From:
Registered:
6/14/05
|
|
|
|
Re: Re: [ogb-discuss] Re: Project Proposal - (what
is/was Indiana)
Posted:
May 31, 2007 9:18 PM
in response to: bjc
|
|
On Thu, 31 May 2007, Bonnie Corwin wrote:
> I'm sorry, but this doesn't work.
>
> You can not expect community members to read all minutes from all OGB
> meetings (which don't happen regularly) to see if decisions were made that
> change policies and processes for OpenSolaris.
>
> We have an -announce alias. We have process directions on various web pages.
>
> How does it make any sense to say that something approved in a meeting and
> captured in minutes is now policy that everyone has to follow? When there was
> no announcement, there are no new directions posted, and Eric's repeated
> emails saying he was continuing to set up projects using the old process were
> ignored.
Thanks you for saying this Bonnie. I have noticed lately that as we move
forward, there's a lot of things that are being decided within issolated
communities, and requires that a member of the OpenSolaris community at
large follow all of these areas, including minutes, faqs, and each thread
within a discussion group. Not for nothing, but most folks will not bother
with such, and will most likely be unaware of many of them.
As a case in point, it was told that the device driver community was
defunct because they didn't respond to a message sent out to them, and
almost a dozen folks missed it. Irony is that the OGB seems to have had
some messages fall through the cracks in regards to this thread, at least
as stated by EricB. My parents used to say, do as I say not as I do...;-)
--
Alan DuBoff - Solaris x86 IHV/OEM Group
_______________________________________________
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
opensolaris-discuss at opensolaris dot org
|
|
|
|
|
Posts:
1,901
From:
NZ
Registered:
6/16/05
|
|
|
|
Re: [ogb-discuss] Project Proposal - (what is/was
Indiana)
Posted:
May 30, 2007 6:02 PM
in response to: wesolows
|
|
Hi,
Keith M Wesolowski wrote:
> On Thu, May 31, 2007 at 10:41:52AM +1200, Glynn Foster wrote:
>
>> Here's the project proposal that should have been out a long while back
>> (apologies, I'm happy to take the blame on this one). Before anyone gets too
>> caught up in how little the proposal actually covers, I intend to follow up with
>> my thoughts if and when the project alias gets created - I'd like that
>> discussion to be far more focused than opensolaris-discuss has been.
>
> The process requires that this be sent to one or more community groups
> for sponsorship consideration - have you sent it to the Distributions
> and Packaging Group? The Constitution and OGB/2007/001 require any
> project proposal to come from a Group.
If I actually knew what community was responsible for that, I'd have talked to
them. It's the best fit for the project proposal, though pretty much
non-existent, and part of the OGB plan for re-organization. I'm not entirely
sure how to resolve this.
> If a Group sent us this request, I believe we would have to send it
> back for revision, for two reasons:
>
> 1. It is incomplete. It does not include a list of Participants
> acting as leaders, and the section on related projects is vague and
> could be interpreted in several ways that would preclude this effort
> from being represented as a project ("including" other projects is
> more properly a feature of a consolidation than a project;
> distributions aggregate consolidations). It's for the sponsoring
> Group(s) to determine whether the description of the "manner in which
> it will [solve problem(s)]" is sufficient, but if submitted as-is I
> would be skeptical that this requirement has been met, even
> superficially.
Including a list of leaders is easily doable, though I was worried that it might
alienate the people who are keen to be involved - or those within other projects
that are doing a lot of the work building the technology. If it's a necessity
for an approval add Ian Murdock and myself.
> 2. The clause "and putting OpenSolaris on a path to being a
> distribution as well as a source base" would place this project
> outside the scope of any extant Community Group; it reflects a desire
> to, in effect, change what the entire community is. More to the
> point, it also reflects a desire for "more equal than others"
> standing, something not generally contemplated by existing
> institutions. However, it's not as bad as that, because this
> statement does not actually seem to bear on the proposed work itself.
> The proposal would not suffer by its removal.
Absolutely, it is out of the current scope of what we've already put in place on
opensolaris.org. Cool huh? I don't believe we're any more equal than just about
any other community group or project - in fact, if anything, they are even more
important. Indiana just pulls all those bits together in where I feel there's an
amazing opportunity.
Glynn
_______________________________________________
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
opensolaris-discuss at opensolaris dot org
|
|
|
|
|
Posts:
818
From:
San Francisco CA US
Registered:
3/9/05
|
|
|
|
Re: [ogb-discuss] Project Proposal - (what is/was
Indiana)
Posted:
May 30, 2007 6:39 PM
in response to: gman
|
|
On Thu, May 31, 2007 at 01:02:16PM +1200, Glynn Foster wrote:
> Including a list of leaders is easily doable, though I was worried
> that it might alienate the people who are keen to be involved - or
> those within other projects that are doing a lot of the work
> building the technology. If it's a necessity for an approval add Ian
> Murdock and myself.
An appropriate time for individuals to learn about a prospective
project and have an opportunity to join the team is during the
discussion of its merits and goals within one or more Community
Groups. Those groups are where the people most likely to be
interested will be found and inspired.
> Absolutely, it is out of the current scope of what we've already put
> in place on opensolaris.org. Cool huh? I don't believe we're any
> more equal than just about any other community group or project - in
> fact, if anything, they are even more important. Indiana just pulls
> all those bits together in where I feel there's an amazing
> opportunity.
If you want to create an OpenSolaris reference distribution, or any
distribution that advertises itself as having that status, some type
of community-wide approval will be required. It seems likely that the
OGB is the appropriate body to consider such a proposal. Given the
lack of detail, absence of an actual distribution to examine, the
small size of the project team, and the lack of any sponsoring Group,
I would personally find it impossible to support such a proposal
today. However, as I pointed out earlier, there is no reason to tie
your project proposal(s) to such a desire; a more appropriate and
reasonable time to propose a reference distribution would be at a time
when a distribution has achieved recognition as a successful and
technically excellent piece of work.
Also, while language requiring that projects have a finite duration
has not yet been approved, it might be more helpful to break this
proposal into a series of more concrete projects with clearly defined
scope, goals, and stopping points. This would make it easier for
potential sponsors to evaluate them and would offer much-needed
clarity to what has unfortunately become a confusing situation for
many.
--
Keith M Wesolowski "Sir, we're surrounded!"
FishWorks "Excellent; we can attack in any direction!"
_______________________________________________
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
opensolaris-discuss at opensolaris dot org
|
|
|
|
|
Posts:
1,901
From:
NZ
Registered:
6/16/05
|
|
|
|
Re: [ogb-discuss] Project Proposal - (what is/was
Indiana)
Posted:
May 30, 2007 7:04 PM
in response to: wesolows
|
|
Hey,
Keith M Wesolowski wrote:
> If you want to create an OpenSolaris reference distribution, or any
> distribution that advertises itself as having that status, some type
> of community-wide approval will be required. It seems likely that the
> OGB is the appropriate body to consider such a proposal. Given the
> lack of detail, absence of an actual distribution to examine, the
> small size of the project team, and the lack of any sponsoring Group,
> I would personally find it impossible to support such a proposal
> today. However, as I pointed out earlier, there is no reason to tie
> your project proposal(s) to such a desire; a more appropriate and
> reasonable time to propose a reference distribution would be at a time
> when a distribution has achieved recognition as a successful and
> technically excellent piece of work.
An OpenSolaris distribution provides a delivery mechanism for other communities
and projects to be able to ship their work in binary form, allowing a far
greater number of people to be able to see what's going on. The whole point of
proposing this was to try and generate a community around it. Sure, I could have
gone off, rounded up a few people and come up with something to propose 6 months
down the line. It would have been a lot easier to determine the contents and
direction, though arguably, a lot harder to convince a community that it's an
open project when it clearly wasn't.
No where did I mention a reference distribution - I agree, we're not necessarily
at that point yet. Maybe we can schedule a discussion at next week's OGB meeting?
> Also, while language requiring that projects have a finite duration
> has not yet been approved, it might be more helpful to break this
> proposal into a series of more concrete projects with clearly defined
> scope, goals, and stopping points. This would make it easier for
> potential sponsors to evaluate them and would offer much-needed
> clarity to what has unfortunately become a confusing situation for
> many.
Outside what is already listed in the description, we're getting into project
management territory of which I'd like to think people could get involved and
express their views - much of what make up an eventual distribution would be the
projects that are their own separate entities (eg. Caiman). I don't believe
either opensolaris-discuss or ogb-discuss is an appropriate forum for this.
Glynn
_______________________________________________
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
opensolaris-discuss at opensolaris dot org
|
|
|
|
|
Posts:
818
From:
San Francisco CA US
Registered:
3/9/05
|
|
|
|
Re: [ogb-discuss] Project Proposal - (what is/was
Indiana)
Posted:
May 30, 2007 7:41 PM
in response to: gman
|
|
On Thu, May 31, 2007 at 02:04:46PM +1200, Glynn Foster wrote:
> No where did I mention a reference distribution - I agree, we're not
> necessarily at that point yet. Maybe we can schedule a discussion at
> next week's OGB meeting?
We can, but I think it would be premature. First, I was making
assertions only about how I would respond to a project proposal for a
reference distribution under the current circumstances. Others might
feel differently, and in any case there's no such proposal. If or
when a Group seeks to sponsor one with that or similar language, that
would seem to be the right time to hold such a discussion. Until a
Group submits something that conforms to the general form required by
OGB/2007/001, everything is hypothetical, which was the point of my
original message.
> Outside what is already listed in the description, we're getting
> into project management territory of which I'd like to think people
> could get involved and express their views - much of what make up an
> eventual distribution would be the projects that are their own
> separate entities (eg. Caiman). I don't believe either
> opensolaris-discuss or ogb-discuss is an appropriate forum for this.
Agree completely - these are issues to work through with members of
the project team, the Community Group from which you seek sponsorship,
and the broader collection of interested people. Presumably the
actual project proposal(s) that come out of that process will reflect
that. Really, if the Distributions Group wrote and endorsed a
properly-formed and suitably scoped request (with at least high-level
dependencies on other projects identified) to create an umbrella
project with the goal of producing a new distribution, I don't see any
reason that request should not be approved expeditiously. If that
project will need work done in one or more consolidations, those
projects could be agreed upon and proposed later. Naturally, that
approach increases the risk of later misunderstandings, loss of focus,
and fracture, but again these are all issues for the sponsoring Group
and the project team. A track record of failure in certain types of
projects might lead the OGB to alter some processes later, but direct
involvement should not otherwise be needed.
--
Keith M Wesolowski "Sir, we're surrounded!"
FishWorks "Excellent; we can attack in any direction!"
_______________________________________________
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
opensolaris-discuss at opensolaris dot org
|
|
|
|
|
Posts:
764
From:
US
Registered:
9/21/05
|
|
|
|
Re: Re: [ogb-discuss] Project Proposal - (what is/was
Indiana)
Posted:
May 30, 2007 8:17 PM
in response to: wesolows
|
|
Although I don't agree with the requirement of a Sun Employee to have
final sayso on decisions, I would like to voice my support for this
project.
Let us begin discussions in an appropriate list to flesh out proposal details.
brian
_______________________________________________
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
opensolaris-discuss at opensolaris dot org
|
|
|
|
|
Posts:
818
From:
San Francisco CA US
Registered:
3/9/05
|
|
|
|
Re: Re: [ogb-discuss] Project Proposal - (what is/was
Indiana)
Posted:
May 31, 2007 8:26 AM
in response to: brandorr
|
|
On Wed, May 30, 2007 at 11:17:25PM -0400, brian dot gupta at gmail dot com wrote:
> Although I don't agree with the requirement of a Sun Employee to have
> final sayso on decisions, I would like to voice my support for this
> project.
No such requirement imposed by the Constitution or OGB/2007/001. Are
you trolling, or just referring to something else (most likely a
broken process we haven't got round to fixing yet - and at this rate,
never will)?
If you're expressing concerns about the way consolidations are run, we
have grounds for productive conversation. I, too, am very unhappy
that the C-teams are operating as Sun entities and making decisions to
suit Sun's business interests. Clearly, they need to be opened to
participation and observation by all, and make decisions on a purely
technical basis. If you would like to propose some guidelines for
doing this, or have ideas about how consolidations ought to be
represented in our Constitutional framework, please start a new thread
on ogb-discuss and we can start to work through that.
--
Keith M Wesolowski "Sir, we're surrounded!"
FishWorks "Excellent; we can attack in any direction!"
_______________________________________________
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
opensolaris-discuss at opensolaris dot org
|
|
|
|
|
Posts:
6,810
From:
US
Registered:
3/9/05
|
|
|
|
Re: Re: [ogb-discuss] Project Proposal - (what is/was
Indiana)
Posted:
May 31, 2007 8:46 AM
in response to: wesolows
|
|
Keith M Wesolowski writes:
> On Wed, May 30, 2007 at 11:17:25PM -0400, brian dot gupta at gmail dot com wrote:
>
> > Although I don't agree with the requirement of a Sun Employee to have
> > final sayso on decisions, I would like to voice my support for this
> > project.
>
> No such requirement imposed by the Constitution or OGB/2007/001. Are
> you trolling, or just referring to something else (most likely a
> broken process we haven't got round to fixing yet - and at this rate,
> never will)?
Although I wouldn't claim to read Brian's mind, that looks to me like
a clear reference to Ian's position within the Indiana project
proposal (see subject line above ;-}) as "arbiter."
I think it's a matter for the project leaders (if there are some
proposed at some point in the future) and the sponsoring communities
to address, if it concerns them. I think that's also what you said at
some earlier point in the thread ...
--
James Carlson, Solaris Networking <james dot d dot carlson at sun dot com>
Sun Microsystems / 1 Network Drive 71.232W Vox +1 781 442 2084
MS UBUR02-212 / Burlington MA 01803-2757 42.496N Fax +1 781 442 1677
_______________________________________________
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
opensolaris-discuss at opensolaris dot org
|
|
|
|
|
Posts:
1,495
From:
Registered:
5/18/05
|
|
|
|
Re: Re: [ogb-discuss] Project Proposal - (what is/was
Indiana)
Posted:
May 30, 2007 10:58 PM
in response to: wesolows
|
|
Keith M Wesolowski wrote:
> If you want to create an OpenSolaris reference distribution, or any
> distribution that advertises itself as having that status,
Why does Indiana have to meet these requirements when Nexenta, Belinix,
MartUX, Schillix, SX, and all the other OS.o distros don't?
Why are you throwing up logistical barriers to this effort instead
of facilitating them?
Or is it that we simply /like/ eating our young?
-John
_______________________________________________
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
opensolaris-discuss at opensolaris dot org
|
|
|
|
|
Posts:
6,810
From:
US
Registered:
3/9/05
|
|
|
|
Re: Re: [ogb-discuss] Project Proposal - (what is/was
Indiana)
Posted:
May 31, 2007 5:36 AM
in response to: plocher
|
|
John Plocher writes:
> Keith M Wesolowski wrote:
> > If you want to create an OpenSolaris reference distribution, or any
> > distribution that advertises itself as having that status,
>
> Why does Indiana have to meet these requirements when Nexenta, Belinix,
> MartUX, Schillix, SX, and all the other OS.o distros don't?
>
> Why are you throwing up logistical barriers to this effort instead
> of facilitating them?
>
> Or is it that we simply /like/ eating our young?
Wow, that's *really* over the top.
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.
What I understand Keith to be saying (and what I agree with here) is
that if you're going to do that in the name of OpenSolaris itself --
not just "PlocherX" but "OpenSolaris Reference Release" -- then that's
logically something that ought to be a deliberate decision of the
community, and not something that "just happens" or (worse) "happens
because some executive at Sun says so."
I'm not sure it's necessarily an unmitigated good thing to have a
single privileged reference release (what happens to distributions
that decide to innovate in a different direction?), but, as a
community member, I'd like to see something more concrete about what
the reference will contain before deciding whether to endorse it.
--
James Carlson, Solaris Networking <james dot d dot carlson at sun dot com>
Sun Microsystems / 1 Network Drive 71.232W Vox +1 781 442 2084
MS UBUR02-212 / Burlington MA 01803-2757 42.496N Fax +1 781 442 1677
_______________________________________________
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
opensolaris-discuss at opensolaris dot org
|
|
|
|
|
Simon Phipps
Simon.Phipps@Sun.COM
|
|
|
|
Re: Re: [ogb-discuss] Project Proposal - (what is/was
Indiana)
Posted:
May 31, 2007 6:47 AM
in response to: carlsonj
|
|
|
|
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 happening. If a Sun-sponsored team went off
outside the scope of the community and created a distribution like
the one being proposed as "Indiana", all hell would break loose here.
> What I understand Keith to be saying (and what I agree with here) is
> that if you're going to do that in the name of OpenSolaris itself --
> not just "PlocherX" but "OpenSolaris Reference Release" -- then that's
> logically something that ought to be a deliberate decision of the
> community, and not something that "just happens" or (worse) "happens
> because some executive at Sun says so."
Right. So the situation we have is:
* A number of members in several OpenSolaris discussion fora mooted
the idea of OpenSolaris producing a distribution. Irt's a pretty
obvious idea and people keep asking where to find that distribution,
so many of us (me included) felt it was a reasonable proposal.
* Some of those people actually started sketching out a plan in a
forum.
* Meanwhile, Ian Murdock was hired by Sun and he felt this was an
idea worth investing in
* Ian got Sun's management bought in to the idea of a new investment
in this community
* One of those management was so excited he commented to the press
during JavaOne, creating fear among those who resent "management
interference"
* Ian rapidly got staff allocated and came back to the community
with news that Sun would commit resources to a community distribution
* Glynn has started the process of co-ordinating the community
decision by creating an outline proposal and submitting it to both
the OGB and the Discuss list for discussion.
We are now at the stage where (as John Plocher said) for some reason
some high-profile individuals are "throwing up logistical barriers to
this effort instead of facilitating them", something that has not
seemed to happen to a project proposal on OpenSolaris before.
> I'm not sure it's necessarily an unmitigated good thing to have a
> single privileged reference release (what happens to distributions
> that decide to innovate in a different direction?), but, as a
> community member, I'd like to see something more concrete about what
> the reference will contain before deciding whether to endorse it.
I agree it may well be a mixed blessing but until we as a community
get the work started we just won't know. It is ridiculous to
criticise the effort for not being fully-formed, since one of the
main fears expressed here has been that of "Sun management"
presenting a fait accomplis.
Thus, as a community member, I'd like to see a team form and get
started. I would really like to see the OGB we elected facilitate
rather than obstruct, please.
S.
_______________________________________________
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
opensolaris-discuss at opensolaris dot org
|
|
|
|
|
Posts:
6,810
From:
US
Registered:
3/9/05
|
|
|
|
Re: Re: [ogb-discuss] Project Proposal - (what is/was
Indiana)
Posted:
May 31, 2007 6:55 AM
in response to: Simon Phipps
|
|
Simon Phipps writes:
> 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 happening. If a Sun-sponsored team went off
> outside the scope of the community and created a distribution like
> the one being proposed as "Indiana", all hell would break loose here.
The part that you snipped away was where John Plocher was asserting
that this case would somehow prevent future distributions (such as the
ones we now have) from even starting. I don't believe that's the
case.
> We are now at the stage where (as John Plocher said) for some reason
> some high-profile individuals are "throwing up logistical barriers to
> this effort instead of facilitating them", something that has not
> seemed to happen to a project proposal on OpenSolaris before.
I just don't see it that way. Is having a community endorse this
project a "barrier?" And one that necessarily causes undue hardship?
If so, then perhaps it's time to amend the constitution we just
ratified. Merely ignoring it doesn't seem like a reasonable option to
me.
> Thus, as a community member, I'd like to see a team form and get
> started. I would really like to see the OGB we elected facilitate
> rather than obstruct, please.
So far, I haven't seen anyone trying to obstruct.
--
James Carlson, Solaris Networking <james dot d dot carlson at sun dot com>
Sun Microsystems / 1 Network Drive 71.232W Vox +1 781 442 2084
MS UBUR02-212 / Burlington MA 01803-2757 42.496N Fax +1 781 442 1677
_______________________________________________
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
opensolaris-discuss at opensolaris dot org
|
|
|
|
|
Posts:
764
From:
US
Registered:
9/21/05
|
|
|
|
Re: Re: [ogb-discuss] Project Proposal - (what is/was
Indiana)
Posted:
May 31, 2007 7:12 AM
in response to: carlsonj
|
|
I was in the process of writing my own proposal for a reference build
(I got sidetracked because of all the distracting Indiana discussion),
I am including my incomplete draft proposal for consideration and
comment:
Proposal OpenSolaris Reference Distribution v0.1
1. Introduction and motivation
1.1 Summary
This project proposes to develop and release weekly distributions that
would be used by OpenSolaris as their reference platform to develop on.
This is similar to the role Solaris Express Community Edition plays now,
But would be sustained and maintained by the OpenSolaris community,
rather than Sun. The problem with SXCS is that it is not OpenSolaris,
but rather a commercial operating system built by Sun.
One of the serious issues with this approach, is that developing
OpenSolaris code on a Solaris distribution does not provide any
technical guarantees that the resulting code in unencumbered.
The motivation behind this proposal is to change the development
environment as it exists today, to put all distributions on equal
footing. If the development platform is unencumbered there is a fair
amount of certainty that the resulting code will be as well.
1.2 History and context
Until recently Solaris and OpenSolaris were controlled by the same
organization, Sun Microsystems. Recently OpenSolaris became an
independent organization, with it's own governing structures and
Constitution.
After this independence OpenSolaris did not start producing their
own reference distribution, instead continuing to rely on Sun's
Solaris Express Community Edition weekly releases.
2. Discussion
2.1 Functionality
There are certain certain bits in Solaris that have not been released
to the community. This new Reference Distribution would be built
without those components. Applicable suitable open source
replacements would be found. If there isn't a suitable replacement,
it would be incumbent upon the OpenSolaris community to develop
suitable replacements.
2.2 Components
2.3 Documentation
2.4 Future projects
3. Interfaces
3.1 Imported interfaces
3.2 Exported interfaces Bundled files
4. References
In addition I have started a Wiki page where we can capture some of
the descions made by the project team.
http://www.genunix.org/wiki/index.php?title=OpenSolaris_Reference_Build
cheers,
brian
On 5/31/07, James Carlson <james dot d dot carlson at sun dot com> wrote:
> Simon Phipps writes:
> > 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 happening. If a Sun-sponsored team went off
> > outside the scope of the community and created a distribution like
> > the one being proposed as "Indiana", all hell would break loose here.
>
> The part that you snipped away was where John Plocher was asserting
> that this case would somehow prevent future distributions (such as the
> ones we now have) from even starting. I don't believe that's the
> case.
>
> > We are now at the stage where (as John Plocher said) for some reason
> > some high-profile individuals are "throwing up logistical barriers to
> > this effort instead of facilitating them", something that has not
> > seemed to happen to a project proposal on OpenSolaris before.
>
> I just don't see it that way. Is having a community endorse this
> project a "barrier?" And one that necessarily causes undue hardship?
>
> If so, then perhaps it's time to amend the constitution we just
> ratified. Merely ignoring it doesn't seem like a reasonable option to
> me.
>
> > Thus, as a community member, I'd like to see a team form and get
> > started. I would really like to see the OGB we elected facilitate
> > rather than obstruct, please.
>
> So far, I haven't seen anyone trying to obstruct.
>
> --
> James Carlson, Solaris Networking <james dot d dot carlson at sun dot com>
> Sun Microsystems / 1 Network Drive 71.232W Vox +1 781 442 2084
> MS UBUR02-212 / Burlington MA 01803-2757 42.496N Fax +1 781 442 1677
> _______________________________________________
> opensolaris-discuss mailing list
> opensolaris-discuss at opensolaris dot org
>
_______________________________________________
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
opensolaris-discuss at opensolaris dot org
|
|
|
|
|
Posts:
764
From:
US
Registered:
9/21/05
|
|
|
|
Re: Re: [ogb-discuss] Project Proposal - (what is/was
Indiana)
Posted:
May 31, 2007 7:24 AM
in response to: brandorr
|
|
One other comment. Generally, a project proposal, would be posted to
the interested communities for comment, before being submitted fait
acompli to the OGB. (I have cc'ed in those communities that I think,
at a minimum, should be included
brian
On 5/31/07, Brian Gupta <brian dot gupta at gmail dot com> wrote:
> I was in the process of writing my own proposal for a reference build
> (I got sidetracked because of all the distracting Indiana discussion),
> I am including my incomplete draft proposal for consideration and
> comment:
>
> Proposal OpenSolaris Reference Distribution v0.1
>
> 1. Introduction and motivation
>
> 1.1 Summary
>
> This project proposes to develop and release weekly distributions that
> would be used by OpenSolaris as their reference platform to develop on.
>
> This is similar to the role Solaris Express Community Edition plays now,
> But would be sustained and maintained by the OpenSolaris community,
> rather than Sun. The problem with SXCS is that it is not OpenSolaris,
> but rather a commercial operating system built by Sun.
>
> One of the serious issues with this approach, is that developing
> OpenSolaris code on a Solaris distribution does not provide any
> technical guarantees that the resulting code in unencumbered.
>
> The motivation behind this proposal is to change the development
> environment as it exists today, to put all distributions on equal
> footing. If the development platform is unencumbered there is a fair
> amount of certainty that the resulting code will be as well.
>
> 1.2 History and context
>
> Until recently Solaris and OpenSolaris were controlled by the same
> organization, Sun Microsystems. Recently OpenSolaris became an
> independent organization, with it's own governing structures and
> Constitution.
>
> After this independence OpenSolaris did not start producing their
> own reference distribution, instead continuing to rely on Sun's
> Solaris Express Community Edition weekly releases.
>
> 2. Discussion
>
> 2.1 Functionality
>
> There are certain certain bits in Solaris that have not been released
> to the community. This new Reference Distribution would be built
> without those components. Applicable suitable open source
> replacements would be found. If there isn't a suitable replacement,
> it would be incumbent upon the OpenSolaris community to develop
> suitable replacements.
>
> 2.2 Components
>
> 2.3 Documentation
>
> 2.4 Future projects
>
> 3. Interfaces
>
> 3.1 Imported interfaces
>
> 3.2 Exported interfaces Bundled files
>
> 4. References
>
> In addition I have started a Wiki page where we can capture some of
> the descions made by the project team.
> http://www.genunix.org/wiki/index.php?title=OpenSolaris_Reference_Build
>
> cheers,
> brian
>
> On 5/31/07, James Carlson <james dot d dot carlson at sun dot com> wrote:
> > Simon Phipps writes:
> > > 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 happening. If a Sun-sponsored team went off
> > > outside the scope of the community and created a distribution like
> > > the one being proposed as "Indiana", all hell would break loose here.
> >
> > The part that you snipped away was where John Plocher was asserting
> > that this case would somehow prevent future distributions (such as the
> > ones we now have) from even starting. I don't believe that's the
> > case.
> >
> > > We are now at the stage where (as John Plocher said) for some reason
> > > some high-profile individuals are "throwing up logistical barriers to
> > > this effort instead of facilitating them", something that has not
> > > seemed to happen to a project proposal on OpenSolaris before.
> >
> > I just don't see it that way. Is having a community endorse this
> > project a "barrier?" And one that necessarily causes undue hardship?
> >
> > If so, then perhaps it's time to amend the constitution we just
> > ratified. Merely ignoring it doesn't seem like a reasonable option to
> > me.
> >
> > > Thus, as a community member, I'd like to see a team form and get
> > > started. I would really like to see the OGB we elected facilitate
> > > rather than obstruct, please.
> >
> > So far, I haven't seen anyone trying to obstruct.
> >
> > --
> > James Carlson, Solaris Networking <james dot d dot carlson at sun dot com>
> > Sun Microsystems / 1 Network Drive 71.232W Vox +1 781 442 2084
> > MS UBUR02-212 / Burlington MA 01803-2757 42.496N Fax +1 781 442 1677
> > _______________________________________________
> > opensolaris-discuss mailing list
> > opensolaris-discuss at opensolaris dot org
> >
>
_______________________________________________
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
opensolaris-discuss at opensolaris dot org
|
|
|
|
|
Posts:
689
From:
GB
Registered:
5/18/05
|
|
|
|
Re: Re: [ogb-discuss] Project Proposal - (what is/was
Indiana)
Posted:
May 31, 2007 7:41 AM
in response to: brandorr
|
|
On May 31, 2007, at 15:24, Brian Gupta wrote:
> One other comment. Generally, a project proposal, would be posted to
> the interested communities for comment, before being submitted fait
> acompli to the OGB. (I have cc'ed in those communities that I think,
> at a minimum, should be included
Actually, I agree with James that the project is so far-reaching that
it's a community-wide issue - I think Glynn did the right thing
approaching the OGB and osol-discuss lists, although it's good to see
which lists you think are affected too. I'd like to see the OGB give
positive, supportive guidance (as well as to see your proposal and
Glynn's harmonised), probably by selecting or creating a community to
work on the proposal you and Glynn are pioneering.
But even if it was the wrong choice, I'm eager to have us all channel
this "stop energy" and suspicion of Sun into something positive. For
goodness sake, Sun's executives are agreeing with you and investing
in the idea you were discussing!
For folks on those lists Brian added that aren't on OSOL-Discuss:
Glynn's proposal can be found at:
http://mail.opensolaris.org/pipermail/opensolaris-discuss/2007-May/
030366.html
S.
_______________________________________________
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
opensolaris-discuss at opensolaris dot org
|
|
|
|
|
Posts:
1,495
From:
Registered:
5/18/05
|
|
|
|
Re: Re: [ogb-discuss] Project Proposal - (what is/was
Indiana)
Posted:
May 31, 2007 10:50 AM
in response to: carlsonj
|
|
James Carlson wrote:
> The part that you snipped away was where John Plocher was asserting
> that this case would somehow prevent future distributions (such as the
> ones we now have) from even starting. I don't believe that's the
> case.
I don't think I was asserting anything like that. It was 3am, so I
may have been more unclear than normal, but where in the following
text that Ian "snipped" do you find that assertion:
> Why does Indiana have to meet these requirements when Nexenta, Belinix,
> MartUX, Schillix, SX, and all the other OS.o distros don't?
?
> I just don't see it that way. Is having a community endorse this
> project a "barrier?" And one that necessarily causes undue hardship?
This project is at least as complete as several of the others that
have been approved with no discussion in the last couple of weeks.
> So far, I haven't seen anyone trying to obstruct.
Other than Keith and you telling Glynn to "go fetch another
rock", because you don't like the rock he currently has.
-John
_______________________________________________
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
opensolaris-discuss at opensolaris dot org
|
|
|
|
|
Posts:
6,810
From:
US
Registered:
3/9/05
|
|
|
|
Re: Re: [ogb-discuss] Project Proposal - (what is/was
Indiana)
Posted:
May 31, 2007 11:15 AM
in response to: plocher
|
|
John Plocher writes:
> James Carlson wrote:
> > The part that you snipped away was where John Plocher was asserting
> > that this case would somehow prevent future distributions (such as the
> > ones we now have) from even starting. I don't believe that's the
> > case.
>
> I don't think I was asserting anything like that. It was 3am, so I
> may have been more unclear than normal, but where in the following
> text that Ian "snipped" do you find that assertion:
>
> > Why does Indiana have to meet these requirements when Nexenta, Belinix,
> > MartUX, Schillix, SX, and all the other OS.o distros don't?
>
> ?
I don't see any other way of reading that. You're saying that other
distributions don't have "requirements" and that thus this new one
shouldn't either.
As an OpenSolaris project, though, it does need to follow the
OpenSolaris project process. That process requires specifing project
leaders (we still don't have any of those) and a community
endorsement. I'd even be willing to go along with an exception
process for projects that don't have sponsoring communities but that
are generally seen as good things. I'm not so willing to go along
with having empty shells -- projects with no leaders.
For what it's worth, none of those other distributions attempted to
adopt the mantle of representing all of OpenSolaris.
> > I just don't see it that way. Is having a community endorse this
> > project a "barrier?" And one that necessarily causes undue hardship?
>
> This project is at least as complete as several of the others that
> have been approved with no discussion in the last couple of weeks.
There's a separate communication problem that I expect Keith and the
others involved to work out. It has nothing to do with this case.
> > So far, I haven't seen anyone trying to obstruct.
>
> Other than Keith and you telling Glynn to "go fetch another
> rock", because you don't like the rock he currently has.
Simply uncalled for. The requests have been very clear and
consistent. I see no way to make them any clearer.
This discussion is obviously not getting anywhere, so if project leads
aren't available and the project somehow still wants to go forward,
then let's open the whole topic of the project creation process back
up again at the next OGB meeting. Please do try to contribute so that
the new process (whatever it may be) is more to your liking.
--
James Carlson, Solaris Networking <james dot d dot carlson at sun dot com>
Sun Microsystems / 1 Network Drive 71.232W Vox +1 781 442 2084
MS UBUR02-212 / Burlington MA 01803-2757 42.496N Fax +1 781 442 1677
_______________________________________________
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
opensolaris-discuss at opensolaris dot org
|
|
|
|
|
Posts:
1,901
From:
NZ
Registered:
6/16/05
|
|
|
|
Re: Re: [ogb-discuss] Project Proposal - (what is/was
Indiana)
Posted:
May 31, 2007 12:01 PM
in response to: carlsonj
|
|
Hi,
James Carlson wrote:
> This discussion is obviously not getting anywhere, so if project leads
> aren't available and the project somehow still wants to go forward,
> then let's open the whole topic of the project creation process back
> up again at the next OGB meeting. Please do try to contribute so that
> the new process (whatever it may be) is more to your liking.
Indeed, but it's showing a process that arguably the membership doesn't agree
with - as you say, it's a discussion point for the next meeting.
In the interests of moving this on, here's the following amendments to the proposal.
1.3 Sponsors
This project has a lot of overlap with a number of Community Groups in
terms of technology but has particularly strong links to the
'Distributions & Packaging' Community Group. For the purposes of this
proposal, the 'Desktop' Community Group will sponsor it.
1.4 Involvement
There is a strong intention for this to be a community grass roots
project, with open contribution. We hope for this project to be
consensus driven, though ultimately the project leads will need
to dictate direction if that proves unfeasible for delivering
a timely release. While many of those decisions can be made within
that specific project area, based on requirements, there may be a
real need for a technical committee (project leads) to be
the sole arbiter.
Project Leads: Glynn Foster
Ian Murdock
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 this,
and in fact, I'd encourage their participation or thoughts. I think there's a
significant benefit to all of this, and if it turns into 2 years wasted (I
believe it won't), then it will be valuable experience for us all nonetheless.
Glynn
_______________________________________________
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
opensolaris-discuss at opensolaris dot org
|
|
|
|
|
Posts:
6,810
From:
US
Registered:
3/9/05
|
|
|
|
Re: Re: [ogb-discuss] Project Proposal - (what is/was
Indiana)
Posted:
May 31, 2007 12:09 PM
in response to: gman
|
|
Glynn Foster writes:
> In the interests of moving this on, here's the following amendments
> to the proposal.
Thanks. That clears up my concerns.
(So much for me standing in the way. Sorry if I disappointed someone
hoping for that.)
> 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 this,
> and in fact, I'd encourage their participation or thoughts. I think there's a
> significant benefit to all of this, and if it turns into 2 years wasted (I
> believe it won't), then it will be valuable experience for us all nonetheless.
No, I don't think it's time or effort wasted.
I do wonder a bit what the distributors of far-afield variants ought
to think of this, particularly because of the naming issue and the
clear differences among the existing variants. If I were working on
Nexenta, would I be pleased, uninterested, or disgusted? Should I be
jumping at the chance to have my own One True Way stamped as the
'official' OpenSolaris way to build a distribution?
--
James Carlson, Solaris Networking <james dot d dot carlson at sun dot com>
Sun Microsystems / 1 Network Drive 71.232W Vox +1 781 442 2084
MS UBUR02-212 / Burlington MA 01803-2757 42.496N Fax +1 781 442 1677
_______________________________________________
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
opensolaris-discuss at opensolaris dot org
|
|
|
|
|
Posts:
1,495
From:
Registered:
5/18/05
|
|
|
|
Re: Re: [ogb-discuss] Project Proposal - (what is/was
Indiana)
Posted:
May 31, 2007 12:38 PM
in response to: carlsonj
|
|
James Carlson wrote:
> I do wonder a bit what the distributors of far-afield variants ought
> to think of this, particularly because of the naming issue and the
> clear differences among the existing variants. If I were working on
> Nexenta, would I be pleased, uninterested, or disgusted? Should I be
I note that none of them are raising objections in this thread :-)
> jumping at the chance to have my own One True Way stamped as the
> 'official' OpenSolaris way to build a distribution?
You are obviously concerned about something "bad" happening here.
I'd suggest that you either need to actively lead this project
away from that "bad" path, or step back and see what happens.
I'll bet that, if the project is indeed going down that "bad"
path, it will fail rather quickly (and good riddance to it, if so).
But if it instead does "good" things and succeeds, we all will
benefit.
-John
_______________________________________________
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
opensolaris-discuss at opensolaris dot org
|
|
|
|
|
Posts:
1,695
From:
US
Registered:
4/28/05
|
|
|
|
Re: Project Proposal - (what is/was Indiana)
Posted:
Jun 1, 2007 12:03 PM
in response to: carlsonj
|
|
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 this,
>> and in fact, I'd encourage their participation or thoughts. I think there's a
>> significant benefit to all of this, and if it turns into 2 years wasted (I
>> believe it won't), then it will be valuable experience for us all nonetheless.
>
> No, I don't think it's time or effort wasted.
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.
Eric
>
> I do wonder a bit what the distributors of far-afield variants ought
> to think of this, particularly because of the naming issue and the
> clear differences among the existing variants. If I were working on
> Nexenta, would I be pleased, uninterested, or disgusted? Should I be
> jumping at the chance to have my own One True Way stamped as the
> 'official' OpenSolaris way to build a distribution?
>
> --
> James Carlson, Solaris Networking <james dot d dot carlson at sun dot com>
> Sun Microsystems / 1 Network Drive 71.232W Vox +1 781 442 2084
> MS UBUR02-212 / Burlington MA 01803-2757 42.496N Fax +1 781 442 1677
> _______________________________________________
> ogb-discuss mailing list
> ogb-discuss at opensolaris dot org
> http://opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/ogb-discuss
>
_______________________________________________
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
opensolaris-discuss at opensolaris dot org
|
|
|
|
|
Posts:
1,695
From:
US
Registered:
4/28/05
|
|
|
|
Re: Project Proposal - (what is/was Indiana)
Posted:
Jun 1, 2007 12:07 PM
in response to: ericb
|
|
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 referring to the use of the name OpenSolaris.
Eric
_______________________________________________
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
opensolaris-discuss at opensolaris dot org
|
|
|
|
|
Posts:
1,901
From:
NZ
Registered:
6/16/05
|
|
|
|
Re: Project Proposal - (what is/was Indiana)
Posted:
Jun 4, 2007 3:09 PM
in response to: ericb
|
|
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 powers to create a mail alias to start getting
some plans discussed [1] - should I just go ahead and do it? Some web space
would be nice, but not essential.
How do we get this moving forward?
Glynn
[1] distro-dev/discuss appropriate?
_______________________________________________
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
opensolaris-discuss at opensolaris dot org
|
|
|
|
|
Posts:
818
From:
San Francisco CA US
Registered:
3/9/05
|
|
|
|
Re: [ogb-discuss] Re: Project Proposal - (what
is/was Indiana)
Posted:
Jun 4, 2007 3:22 PM
in response to: gman
|
|
On Tue, Jun 05, 2007 at 10:09:38AM +1200, Glynn Foster wrote:
> So, can we just do it? I have powers to create a mail alias to start getting
> some plans discussed [1] - should I just go ahead and do it? Some web space
> would be nice, but not essential.
>
> How do we get this moving forward?
Find a Group (preferably a relevant one) that wants to create your
mailing list. That's really all there is to it. Creating new mail
aliases like distro-discuss that squat on the namespace is naughty,
though; the name should be a part of the sponsoring Group's namespace.
--
Keith M Wesolowski "Sir, we're surrounded!"
FishWorks "Excellent; we can attack in any direction!"
_______________________________________________
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
opensolaris-discuss at opensolaris dot org
|
|
|
|
|
Posts:
1,901
From:
NZ
Registered:
6/16/05
|
|
|
|
Re: [ogb-discuss] Re: Project Proposal - (what
is/was Indiana)
Posted:
Jun 4, 2007 5:23 PM
in response to: wesolows
|
|
Keith M Wesolowski wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 05, 2007 at 10:09:38AM +1200, Glynn Foster wrote:
>
>> So, can we just do it? I have powers to create a mail alias to start getting
>> some plans discussed [1] - should I just go ahead and do it? Some web space
>> would be nice, but not essential.
>>
>> How do we get this moving forward?
>
> Find a Group (preferably a relevant one) that wants to create your
> mailing list. That's really all there is to it. Creating new mail
> aliases like distro-discuss that squat on the namespace is naughty,
> though; the name should be a part of the sponsoring Group's namespace.
So since the Desktop seemingly isn't relevant enough, I've gone and mailed all 9
core contributors from the Installation and Packaging group to see if they can
endorse such a project. I'm still struggling to find a name of a mailing list
that better describes the work we want to do.
This is all very unmotivating.
Glynn
_______________________________________________
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
opensolaris-discuss at opensolaris dot org
|
|
|
|
|
Posts:
818
From:
San Francisco CA US
Registered:
3/9/05
|
|
|
|
Re: [ogb-discuss] Re: Project Proposal - (what
is/was Indiana)
Posted:
Jun 4, 2007 5:37 PM
in response to: gman
|
|
On Tue, Jun 05, 2007 at 12:23:30PM +1200, Glynn Foster wrote:
> So since the Desktop seemingly isn't relevant enough, I've gone and
My personal feelings about relevance aren't worth a hill of beans. If
the Desktop Group believes exploring this work to be within its
charter, it's free to do so. The OGB intervenes only if another Group
objects.
> This is all very unmotivating.
Do you really want the OGB to be responsible for deciding whether
every mailing list can be created? Whether every project is worth
doing? And do you really want to have no appeal if it decides your
pet project isn't, in fact, worth doing? As an OGB member, I don't
have the time to do all that, and as someone who wants to "just get
things done," you surely don't want to wait on a 6-month-long OGB
docket. That's why we leave things to the Groups to do pretty much as
they please.
--
Keith M Wesolowski "Sir, we're surrounded!"
FishWorks "Excellent; we can attack in any direction!"
_______________________________________________
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
opensolaris-discuss at opensolaris dot org
|
|
|
|
|
Posts:
689
From:
GB
Registered:
5/18/05
|
|
|
|
Re: Re: [ogb-discuss] Re: Project Proposal - (what
is/was Indiana)
Posted:
Jun 4, 2007 5:48 PM
in response to: wesolows
|
|
On Jun 5, 2007, at 01:37, Keith M Wesolowski wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 05, 2007 at 12:23:30PM +1200, Glynn Foster wrote:
>
>> So since the Desktop seemingly isn't relevant enough, I've gone and
>
> My personal feelings about relevance aren't worth a hill of beans. If
> the Desktop Group believes exploring this work to be within its
> charter, it's free to do so. The OGB intervenes only if another Group
> objects.
In which case may I suggest you need to be clearer when you are
speaking on behalf of the OGB or in some other manner of assumed
authority and when you are just expressing a personal opinion? I'm
atypical I know, but I had the distinct impression you were seeking
to speak /ex cathedra/.
S.
_______________________________________________
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
opensolaris-discuss at opensolaris dot org
|
|
|
|
|
Posts:
6,810
From:
US
Registered:
3/9/05
|
|
|
|
Re: Re: [ogb-discuss] Re: Project Proposal - (what
is/was Indiana)
Posted:
Jun 5, 2007 7:31 AM
in response to: webmink
|
|
Simon Phipps writes:
> In which case may I suggest you need to be clearer when you are
> speaking on behalf of the OGB or in some other manner of assumed
> authority and when you are just expressing a personal opinion? I'm
> atypical I know, but I had the distinct impression you were seeking
> to speak /ex cathedra/.
For what it's worth, I don't want to see _anyone_ speaking on the
OGB's behalf. The OGB members are able to speak for themselves, but
the OGB itself is inanimate. All it owns are the results of the
decisions (votes) we've held.
I think having someone speak from the chair would be a poor precedent.
--
James Carlson, Solaris Networking <james dot d dot carlson at sun dot com>
Sun Microsystems / 1 Network Drive 71.232W Vox +1 781 442 2084
MS UBUR02-212 / Burlington MA 01803-2757 42.496N Fax +1 781 442 1677
_______________________________________________
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
opensolaris-discuss at opensolaris dot org
|
|
|
|
|
Posts:
2,177
From:
US
Registered:
6/24/05
|
|
|
|
Re: [ogb-discuss] Re: Project Proposal - (what
is/was Indiana)
Posted:
Jun 4, 2007 6:42 PM
in response to: wesolows
To: OpenSolaris » discuss
|
|
As an OGB
> member, I don't
> have the time to do all that,
> --
> Keith M Wesolowski "Sir, we're surrounded!"
> FishWorks "Excellent; we can attack in any
> direction!"
> _______________________________________________
> opensolaris-discuss mailing list
> opensolaris-discuss at opensolaris dot org
>
If that is the case probably you should consider resigning from the Board. At least that's what I would do facing the same situation. Many of us want OpenSolaris to move forward at a much faster pace.
|
|
|
|
|
Posts:
1,156
From:
US
Registered:
3/9/05
|
|
|
|
Re: Re: [ogb-discuss] Re: Project Proposal -
(what is/was Indiana)
Posted:
Jun 4, 2007 8:32 PM
in response to: waynel
|
|
On Mon, Jun 04, 2007 at 06:42:30PM -0700, W. Wayne Liauh wrote:
> As an OGB
> > member, I don't
> > have the time to do all that,
> > --
> > Keith M Wesolowski "Sir, we're surrounded!"
> > FishWorks "Excellent; we can attack in any
> > direction!"
> > _______________________________________________
> > opensolaris-discuss mailing list
> > opensolaris-discuss at opensolaris dot org
> >
>
> If that is the case probably you should consider resigning from the Board. At least that's what I would do facing the same situation. Many of us want OpenSolaris to move forward at a much faster pace.
You quoted Keith incompletely. The point he was trying to make was that
the OGB should not be micro-managing every last little decision. If it
were, then OpenSolaris would be moving at an even slower pace.
cheers,
steve
--
stephen lau // stevel at sun dot com | 650.786.0845 | http://whacked.net
opensolaris // solaris kernel development
_______________________________________________
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
opensolaris-discuss at opensolaris dot org
|
|
|
|
|
Posts:
567
From:
Registered:
3/17/07
|
|
|
|
Re: [ogb-discuss] Re: Project Proposal - (what
Posted:
Jun 5, 2007 12:30 AM
in response to: gman
To: OpenSolaris » discuss
|
|
> Keith M Wesolowski wrote:
> > On Tue, Jun 05, 2007 at 10:09:38AM +1200, Glynn
> Foster wrote:
> >
> >> So, can we just do it? I have powers to create a
> mail alias to start getting
> >> some plans discussed [1] - should I just go ahead
> and do it? Some web space
> >> would be nice, but not essential.
> >>
> >> How do we get this moving forward?
> >
> > Find a Group (preferably a relevant one) that wants
> to create your
> > mailing list. That's really all there is to it.
> Creating new mail
> aliases like distro-discuss that squat on the
> namespace is naughty,
> though; the name should be a part of the sponsoring
> Group's namespace.
> So since the Desktop seemingly isn't relevant enough,
> I've gone and mailed all 9
> core contributors from the Installation and Packaging
> group to see if they can
> endorse such a project. I'm still struggling to find
> a name of a mailing list
> that better describes the work we want to do.
>
> This is all very unmotivating.
>
>
> Glynn
> _______________________________________________
> opensolaris-discuss mailing list
> opensolaris-discuss at opensolaris dot org
>
This thread is awesome. Paperwork Pokemon: I choose YOU!
Unless something is terribly broken, the leader of the project (Ian?) should be able to have this administrative stuff dealt with in a day. A big fuss over the creation of a mailing list? Come on!
Go Go Gadget Bureaucracy!
|
|
|
|
|
Posts:
2,177
From:
US
Registered:
6/24/05
|
|
|
|
Re: [ogb-discuss] Re: Project Proposal - (what
Posted:
Jun 5, 2007 2:02 AM
in response to: loomy
To: OpenSolaris » discuss
|
|
> This thread is awesome. Paperwork Pokemon: I choose
> YOU!
>
> Unless something is terribly broken, the leader of
> the project (Ian?) should be able to have this
> administrative stuff dealt with in a day. A big fuss
> over the creation of a mailing list? Come on!
>
> Go Go Gadget Bureaucracy!
Just another irrelevant comment:
Gman (the "GNOME-Man") is like a demigod in the Desktop community. It pains me greatly to see our leader gets so tortured and treated like . . . like a nobody like me. With absolutely no respect!
As I mentioned to Alanc in a private mail, I am taking Sun's words at their face value that Solaris is greater than Sun, which, in turn, is always greater than a sum of some of its employees.
|
|
|
|
|
Posts:
142
From:
Newport Beach, California
Registered:
4/27/05
|
|
|
|
Re: Re: [ogb-discuss] Project Proposal - (what is/was
Indiana)
Posted:
May 31, 2007 12:56 PM
in response to: gman
|
|
On May 31, 2007, at 12:01 PM, Glynn Foster wrote:
> 1.4 Involvement
>
> There is a strong intention for this to be a community grass roots
> project, with open contribution. We hope for this project to be
> consensus driven, though ultimately the project leads will need
> to dictate direction if that proves unfeasible for delivering
> a timely release. While many of those decisions can be made within
> that specific project area, based on requirements, there may be a
> real need for a technical committee (project leads) to be
> the sole arbiter.
If this is an OpenSolaris activity, it will obey the Group voting
procedures documented in the constitution. There is no such thing as
a sole arbiter at OpenSolaris, period.
....Roy
_______________________________________________
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
opensolaris-discuss at opensolaris dot org
|
|
|
|
|
Posts:
764
From:
US
Registered:
9/21/05
|
|
|
|
Re: Re: [ogb-discuss] Project Proposal - (what is/was
Indiana)
Posted:
May 31, 2007 1:40 PM
in response to: fielding
|
|
> If this is an OpenSolaris activity, it will obey the Group voting
> procedures documented in the constitution. There is no such thing as
> a sole arbiter at OpenSolaris, period.
Check out the following text CNET article: http://tinyurl.com/ys7hb2
Relevant text:
> And although Foster said the project is intended to be grassroots and consensus-driven,
> "there may be a real need for a sole arbiter, Ian Murdock," who is Sun's chief operating
> systems officer and a founder of the Debian version of Linux.
brian
_______________________________________________
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
opensolaris-discuss at opensolaris dot org
|
|
|
|
|
Posts:
142
From:
Newport Beach, California
Registered:
4/27/05
|
|
|
|
Re: Re: [ogb-discuss] Project Proposal - (what is/was
Indiana)
Posted:
May 31, 2007 1:53 PM
in response to: brandorr
|
|
On May 31, 2007, at 1:40 PM, Brian Gupta wrote:
>> If this is an OpenSolaris activity, it will obey the Group voting
>> procedures documented in the constitution. There is no such thing as
>> a sole arbiter at OpenSolaris, period.
>
> Check out the following text CNET article: http://tinyurl.com/ys7hb2
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.
....Roy
_______________________________________________
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
opensolaris-discuss at opensolaris dot org
|
|
|
|
|
Posts:
1,901
From:
NZ
Registered:
6/16/05
|
|
|
|
Re: Re: [ogb-discuss] Project Proposal - (what is/was
Indiana)
Posted:
May 31, 2007 2:18 PM
in response to: fielding
|
|
Roy T. Fielding wrote:
> On May 31, 2007, at 1:40 PM, Brian Gupta wrote:
>
>>> If this is an OpenSolaris activity, it will obey the Group voting
>>> procedures documented in the constitution. There is no such thing as
>>> a sole arbiter at OpenSolaris, period.
>>
>> Check out the following text CNET article: http://tinyurl.com/ys7hb2
>
> 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.
Technical committee or project leads. I don't actually mind so long as we have a
way of making a decision, and moving on as I mentioned in a previous reply when
mutual consensus can't be achieved. I expect those types of technical decisions
to be made by the usual stakeholders who have the experience and technical
ability to make an informed one.
Let's move on.
Glynn
_______________________________________________
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
opensolaris-discuss at opensolaris dot org
|
|
|
|
|
Posts:
6,810
From:
US
Registered:
3/9/05
|
|
|
|
Re: Re: [ogb-discuss] Project Proposal - (what is/was
Indiana)
Posted:
May 31, 2007 2:27 PM
in response to: fielding
|
|
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.
--
James Carlson, Solaris Networking <james dot d dot carlson at sun dot com>
Sun Microsystems / 1 Network Drive 71.232W Vox +1 781 442 2084
MS UBUR02-212 / Burlington MA 01803-2757 42.496N Fax +1 781 442 1677
_______________________________________________
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
opensolaris-discuss at opensolaris dot org
|
|
|
|
|
Posts:
1,695
From:
US
Registered:
4/28/05
|
|
|
|
Re: Project Proposal - (what is/was Indiana)
Posted:
Jun 3, 2007 8:22 PM
in response to: Simon Phipps
|
|
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 happening. If a Sun-sponsored team went off outside the
> scope of the community and created a distribution like the one being proposed
> as "Indiana", all hell would break loose here.
>
>> What I understand Keith to be saying (and what I agree with here) is
>> that if you're going to do that in the name of OpenSolaris itself --
>> not just "PlocherX" but "OpenSolaris Reference Release" -- then that's
>> logically something that ought to be a deliberate decision of the
>> community, and not something that "just happens" or (worse) "happens
>> because some executive at Sun says so."
>
> Right. So the situation we have is:
>
> * A number of members in several OpenSolaris discussion fora mooted the idea
> of OpenSolaris producing a distribution. Irt's a pretty obvious idea and
> people keep asking where to find that distribution, so many of us (me
> included) felt it was a reasonable proposal.
> * Some of those people actually started sketching out a plan in a forum.
> * Meanwhile, Ian Murdock was hired by Sun and he felt this was an idea worth
> investing in
> * Ian got Sun's management bought in to the idea of a new investment in this
> community
> * One of those management was so excited he commented to the press during
> JavaOne, creating fear among those who resent "management interference"
> * Ian rapidly got staff allocated and came back to the community with news
> that Sun would commit resources to a community distribution
> * Glynn has started the process of co-ordinating the community decision by
> creating an outline proposal and submitting it to both the OGB and the
> Discuss list for discussion.
>
> We are now at the stage where (as John Plocher said) for some reason some
> high-profile individuals are "throwing up logistical barriers to this effort
> instead of facilitating them", something that has not seemed to happen to a
> project proposal on OpenSolaris before.
I disagree, what's actually happening here, I think, (and as others have
pointed out) is turmoil over some troublesome questions:
Is the designation "The OpenSolaris Distro" claimable by a
project? And if yes, does the Indiana project get to claim it?
Eric
>
>> I'm not sure it's necessarily an unmitigated good thing to have a
>> single privileged reference release (what happens to distributions
>> that decide to innovate in a different direction?), but, as a
>> community member, I'd like to see something more concrete about what
>> the reference will contain before deciding whether to endorse it.
>
> I agree it may well be a mixed blessing but until we as a community get the
> work started we just won't know. It is ridiculous to criticise the effort for
> not being fully-formed, since one of the main fears expressed here has been
> that of "Sun management" presenting a fait accomplis.
>
> Thus, as a community member, I'd like to see a team form and get started. I
> would really like to see the OGB we elected facilitate rather than obstruct,
> please.
>
> S.
>
>
>
_______________________________________________
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
opensolaris-discuss at opensolaris dot org
|
|
|
|
|
Posts:
1,695
From:
US
Registered:
4/28/05
|
|
|
|
Re: Re: [ogb-discuss] Project Proposal - (what is/was
Indiana)
Posted:
May 31, 2007 7:36 AM
in response to: carlsonj
|
|
+1. I'm 100% in the camp with those who hold the views
expressed in this message (and, of course, those expressed in
James' message subsequent to this one).
Eric
On Thu, 31 May 2007, James Carlson wrote:
> John Plocher writes:
>> Keith M Wesolowski wrote:
>>> If you want to create an OpenSolaris reference distribution, or any
>>> distribution that advertises itself as having that status,
>>
>> Why does Indiana have to meet these requirements when Nexenta, Belinix,
>> MartUX, Schillix, SX, and all the other OS.o distros don't?
>>
>> Why are you throwing up logistical barriers to this effort instead
>> of facilitating them?
>>
>> Or is it that we simply /like/ eating our young?
>
> Wow, that's *really* over the top.
>
> 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.
>
> What I understand Keith to be saying (and what I agree with here) is
> that if you're going to do that in the name of OpenSolaris itself --
> not just "PlocherX" but "OpenSolaris Reference Release" -- then that's
> logically something that ought to be a deliberate decision of the
> community, and not something that "just happens" or (worse) "happens
> because some executive at Sun says so."
>
> I'm not sure it's necessarily an unmitigated good thing to have a
> single privileged reference release (what happens to distributions
> that decide to innovate in a different direction?), but, as a
> community member, I'd like to see something more concrete about what
> the reference will contain before deciding whether to endorse it.
>
> --
> James Carlson, Solaris Networking <james dot d dot carlson at sun dot com>
> Sun Microsystems / 1 Network Drive 71.232W Vox +1 781 442 2084
> MS UBUR02-212 / Burlington MA 01803-2757 42.496N Fax +1 781 442 1677
> _______________________________________________
> ogb-discuss mailing list
> ogb-discuss at opensolaris dot org
> http://opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/ogb-discuss
>
_______________________________________________
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
opensolaris-discuss at opensolaris dot org
|
|
|
|
|
Posts:
1,495
From:
Registered:
5/18/05
|
|
|
|
Re: Re: [ogb-discuss] Project Proposal - (what is/was
Indiana)
Posted:
May 31, 2007 10:32 AM
in response to: carlsonj
|
|
James Carlson wrote:
> What I understand Keith to be saying (and what I agree with here) is
> that if you're going to do that in the name of OpenSolaris itself --
> not just "PlocherX" but "OpenSolaris Reference Release" -- then that's
> logically something that ought to be a deliberate decision of the
> community, and not something that "just happens" or (worse) "happens
> because some executive at Sun says so."
That "executive at Sun" (Ian M) is also a member of the OpenSolaris
Community, and modulo his contributer grants, just as much a player
as you or I.
Where in the community's charter or constitution does it say
that creating /an/ (not /the/) OpenSolaris distro that can be
reused by others as a reference must obtain "special" approval
by the OGB or OS.o community at large?
>
> I'm not sure it's necessarily an unmitigated good thing to have a
> single privileged reference release (what happens to distributions
> that decide to innovate in a different direction?),
So it boils down to the fact that the OGB [or at least some of its
members] either don't like the name of a project or object to
some aspect of its goals.
Neither is within the purview of the OGB - which exists to
resolve non-technical disputes, and not to create technical
mandates.
> but, as a
> community member, I'd like to see something more concrete about what
> the reference will contain before deciding whether to endorse it.
>
The OGB exists to make sure the OpenSolaris Community grows and
does cool things. Get out of the way and let Indiana grow
and do cool things, or let it die and fail - but let it do those
things by and to itself.
-John
_______________________________________________
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
opensolaris-discuss at opensolaris dot org
|
|
|
|
|
Posts:
6,810
From:
US
Registered:
3/9/05
|
|
|
|
Re: Re: [ogb-discuss] Project Proposal - (what is/was
Indiana)
Posted:
May 31, 2007 11:08 AM
in response to: plocher
|
|
John Plocher writes:
> James Carlson wrote:
> > What I understand Keith to be saying (and what I agree with here) is
> > that if you're going to do that in the name of OpenSolaris itself --
> > not just "PlocherX" but "OpenSolaris Reference Release" -- then that's
> > logically something that ought to be a deliberate decision of the
> > community, and not something that "just happens" or (worse) "happens
> > because some executive at Sun says so."
>
> That "executive at Sun" (Ian M) is also a member of the OpenSolaris
> Community, and modulo his contributer grants, just as much a player
> as you or I.
Right. And I wouldn't dream of creating my own distribution and
calling it "the OpenSolaris distribution."
> Where in the community's charter or constitution does it say
> that creating /an/ (not /the/) OpenSolaris distro that can be
> reused by others as a reference must obtain "special" approval
> by the OGB or OS.o community at large?
I'll leave that to the more lawyerly among us.
As noted before, I don't think the OGB itself actually grants any sort
of approval to projects -- that's what community groups do. So,
there's no reason to suppose that I'm insisting that it get one here.
I'm more than willing to take these issues to the project group
itself, though, *if* there's a complete project proposal.
My take on the project is that the name "OpenSolaris" should belong to
the larger community and not to any one distribution. This means that
we'd be in the same discussion if (say) SchilliX decided to call
itself "the Real OpenSolaris" instead.
It seems like a special issue -- squatting in a public name space --
that we hadn't really considered before. It's at least new and
potentially a broader problem.
To me, creating a distribution that is somehow more equal than the
others at this early point sounds like a disaster for the other
distributions and a rather precipitous decision to fix what ultimately
seems to be a gnat of a problem. (Can't find binaries? Why not just
add "download here" links from the top-level page and fix SDLC?)
> > I'm not sure it's necessarily an unmitigated good thing to have a
> > single privileged reference release (what happens to distributions
> > that decide to innovate in a different direction?),
>
> So it boils down to the fact that the OGB [or at least some of its
> members] either don't like the name of a project or object to
> some aspect of its goals.
Huh? No. I think that's a serious misunderstanding.
All that concerns me at this level is whether the original project
proposal was complete. It was not. It lacked both community
sponsorship (currently required in the process; obviously of some
debatable merit) and, much more importantly, a list of project
leaders.
Projects without leaders seem rather pointless, and the old 1-pager
process *did* require the identification of leaders, so this is
nothing new or onerous.
--
James Carlson, Solaris Networking <james dot d dot carlson at sun dot com>
Sun Microsystems / 1 Network Drive 71.232W Vox +1 781 442 2084
MS UBUR02-212 / Burlington MA 01803-2757 42.496N Fax +1 781 442 1677
_______________________________________________
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
opensolaris-discuss at opensolaris dot org
|
|
|
|
|
Posts:
818
From:
San Francisco CA US
Registered:
3/9/05
|
|
|
|
Re: Re: [ogb-discuss] Project Proposal - (what is/was
Indiana)
Posted:
May 31, 2007 10:55 AM
in response to: plocher
|
|
On Wed, May 30, 2007 at 10:58:21PM -0700, John Plocher wrote:
> Why does Indiana have to meet these requirements when Nexenta, Belinix,
> MartUX, Schillix, SX, and all the other OS.o distros don't?
It doesn't. In fact, it doesn't have to meet any requirements at all
to be a project except those imposed by its sponsoring Group, from
which we still haven't heard word one. Some pending changes we're
contemplating might require projects to have a defined goal and
stopping point, but those changes haven't yet been adopted. Even so,
that's hardly an unfair or unreasonable limitation, especially since
Groups can use their right of self-governance to do indefinite work in
other ways. In fact, if those changes are approved, Indiana wouldn't
be a project at all; it could be represented as a committee or some
other internal structure within a Group for doing ongoing work with no
defined stopping point. The crippling, heavyweight bureaucratic
process of sending a simple 2-paragraph announcement to the OGB for
dissemination and resource allocation could be avoided, surely to
everyone's great relief.
If it wants to be considered a reference or official distribution
endorsed by the entire OpenSolaris community, then there are
additional requirements. Either the OGB, or, as Alan suggests, the
entire Membership, would have to evaluate and approve that proposal.
This would be true no matter which distribution's leadership makes the
request. My comments to Glynn have been to the effect that if he
wants this project proposal approved quickly and painlessly,
discussion of "putting OpenSolaris on a path to being a distribution
as well as a source base" is better left out.
> Why are you throwing up logistical barriers to this effort instead
> of facilitating them?
There is no barrier here. And, for good measure, here's some
facilitation:
To get your project on the road, have a Group approve and forward
a short, simple announcement as described by OGB/2007/001. That's
really all it takes.
If you don't like the requirement that projects be sponsored by
Groups, propose a Constitutional amendment.
Based on the amount of mail in this thread so far, I'd estimate that
enough time's been wasted for a Group to have written, approved, and
forwarded two or three Project Indiana proposals. If one factors in
the time this team has already spent embroiled in flamewars and
unfocused controversy on -discuss (a waste of time, BTW, that the
Group-led process is intended to eliminate), they'd probably be
stamping DVDs by now.
> Or is it that we simply /like/ eating our young?
Well, they are crunchy, and tasty with ketchup. But accusing us of
trying to kill this project with process? Sorry, it's just not true.
--
Keith M Wesolowski "Sir, we're surrounded!"
FishWorks "Excellent; we can attack in any direction!"
_______________________________________________
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
opensolaris-discuss at opensolaris dot org
|
|
|
|
|
Posts:
1,218
From:
Registered:
3/9/05
|
|
|
|
Re: Re: [ogb-discuss] Project Proposal - (what is/was
Indiana)
Posted:
May 31, 2007 3:28 AM
in response to: wesolows
|
|
Keith M Wesolowski wrote:
> If you want to create an OpenSolaris reference distribution, or any
> distribution that advertises itself as having that status, some type
> of community-wide approval will be required. It seems likely that the
> OGB is the appropriate body to consider such a proposal.
The constitution is quite clear on this point, it isn't the OGB who has
the mandate to make such community-wide decisions:
3.1
"the set of all individuals that have been named by one or more
Community Groups as Core Contributors are the Members who are given the
right to vote on Community-wide decisions."
--
Alan Burlison
--
_______________________________________________
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
opensolaris-discuss at opensolaris dot org
|
|
|
|
|
Posts:
6,810
From:
US
Registered:
3/9/05
|
|
|
|
Re: [ogb-discuss] Project Proposal - (what is/was
Indiana)
Posted:
May 31, 2007 5:52 AM
in response to: gman
|
|
Glynn Foster writes:
> Including a list of leaders is easily doable, though I was worried that it might
> alienate the people who are keen to be involved - or those within other projects
> that are doing a lot of the work building the technology. If it's a necessity
> for an approval add Ian Murdock and myself.
In that case, I'd suggest going to a group (such as 'install') or
other suitable mailing and looking for people interested in acting as
those initial leaders. I agree that you probably don't want to
alienate potential help by marching ahead with a project before
figuring out who the leaders are.
It's not just that having some named leaders (with perhaps more to be
named later) is a "necessity for an approval," but that the project is
logically incomplete if there's nobody who is actually leading the
effort. It's just a bit of flotsam.
--
James Carlson, Solaris Networking <james dot d dot carlson at sun dot com>
Sun Microsystems / 1 Network Drive 71.232W Vox +1 781 442 2084
MS UBUR02-212 / Burlington MA 01803-2757 42.496N Fax +1 781 442 1677
_______________________________________________
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
opensolaris-discuss at opensolaris dot org
|
|
|
|
|
Posts:
257
From:
IE
Registered:
7/4/05
|
|
|
|
Re: Re: [ogb-discuss] Project Proposal - (what is/was
Indiana)
Posted:
May 31, 2007 6:28 AM
in response to: carlsonj
|
|
This is a case (as I believe many real world cases will be) where it
isn't clear that the proposed project fits entirely within an existing
community. How do we prevent bugs in governance, bugs in the community
organization, and misunderstanding by outsiders (and insiders) from
preventing technical contributors from doing what they do best? I'd
propose that every clause in the constitution should be rewritten or
linked to/from a clause in an FAQ or (REQUEST:REQUIREMENT) -> PROCESS
format. I think this change would be useful, it might help some Sun
insiders accustomed to layers of internal bureaucracy to better
understand new ways of thinking in the outside world and would be a good
example of something OpenSolaris does better than other Open Source
communities.
For example, think of an outsider trying to create and integrate a set
of educational software into an educational OpenSource distribution.
Is there an educational opensource community? No.
How do I create an educational opensource community? (I'd guess you
have to be a voting member and/or contributor to some other community???)
How do I become a voting member? (It's somewhere in this thread, be
recognized as a core contributer to some community) but since this
proposal doesn't match any existing community, I'm still on the outside...)
O.K. Now I have my community, how do I create a project? (It's
described in legalese in the constitution, but really, how do I create a
project?)
I understand that most technical people who really want their project
accepted in the OpenSource community will persist until some insider who
thinks they understand the process du jour sponsors the project and
pushes it through. But this early in OpenSolaris's growth we really
afford to alienate any potential technical contributors who can just as
easily decide to not bother porting their solution to OpenSolaris and
instead port it to one of several hundred GNU/Linux distributions?
James Carlson wrote:
> Glynn Foster writes:
>
>> Including a list of leaders is easily doable, though I was worried that it might
>> alienate the people who are keen to be involved - or those within other projects
>> that are doing a lot of the work building the technology. If it's a necessity
>> for an approval add Ian Murdock and myself.
>>
>
> In that case, I'd suggest going to a group (such as 'install') or
> other suitable mailing and looking for people interested in acting as
> those initial leaders. I agree that you probably don't want to
> alienate potential help by marching ahead with a project before
> figuring out who the leaders are.
>
> It's not just that having some named leaders (with perhaps more to be
> named later) is a "necessity for an approval," but that the project is
> logically incomplete if there's nobody who is actually leading the
> effort. It's just a bit of flotsam.
>
>
_______________________________________________
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
opensolaris-discuss at opensolaris dot org
|
|
|
|
|
Posts:
1,218
From:
Registered:
3/9/05
|
|
|
|
Re: Re: [ogb-discuss] Project Proposal - (what is/was
Indiana)
Posted:
May 31, 2007 6:31 AM
in response to: bnitz
|
|
Brian Nitz wrote:
> For example, think of an outsider trying to create and integrate a set
> of educational software into an educational OpenSource distribution.
> Is there an educational opensource community? No.
>
> How do I create an educational opensource community? (I'd guess you
> have to be a voting member and/or contributor to some other community???)
>
> How do I become a voting member? (It's somewhere in this thread, be
> recognized as a core contributer to some community) but since this
> proposal doesn't match any existing community, I'm still on the outside...)
>
> O.K. Now I have my community, how do I create a project? (It's
> described in legalese in the constitution, but really, how do I create a
> project?)
>
> I understand that most technical people who really want their project
> accepted in the OpenSource community will persist until some insider who
> thinks they understand the process du jour sponsors the project and
> pushes it through. But this early in OpenSolaris's growth we really
> afford to alienate any potential technical contributors who can just as
> easily decide to not bother porting their solution to OpenSolaris and
> instead port it to one of several hundred GNU/Linux distributions?
+1, I couldn't agree more.
--
Alan Burlison
--
_______________________________________________
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
opensolaris-discuss at opensolaris dot org
|
|
|
|
|
Francois Saint-...
mailing@networkdump....
|
|
|
|
Re: Project Proposal - (what is/was Indiana)
Posted:
May 30, 2007 6:29 PM
in response to: gman
|
|
Hello Glynn, Ian and others,
I am not active on this list, but I started following your thread this
weekend because I'm really intrigued by the Indiana project. My first
experience with OpenSolaris was on Nexenta, which is a quite nice
distribution.
Since Indiana is aimed at attracting the Linux community, ie me, I would
like to share my point of view.
On Thu, May 31, 2007 at 10:41:52AM +1200, Glynn Foster wrote:
> A 6 monthly time based release schedule will focus energies in producing
> a single CD install, and putting OpenSolaris on a path to being a
> distribution as well as a source base. With a focus on the user experience,
> it is hoped that with wide distribution, the OpenSolaris ecosystem will
> grow, providing valuable feedback to the project.
1. 6 month is WAY too short in my opinion. There is nothing more painfull
than upgrading Fedora core 1 to 6 or Ubuntu abc to xyz while dist-upgrading 3-4
releases. Update process *should not* take more than 3 hours. I understand
this is may be impossible with customized/compiled softwares, but a base
system should update really quickly. I don't want a desktop with the
lastest Gnome version, I want a stable Solaris derived OS.
2. Package management is important. I know that Ian already pointed that
as a priority. This point is tightly related to the first one. Debian is
one of my favorite, if not my favorite Linux distribution out there. I
don't want to start a flamewar between dpkg/rpm/pkg/ebuilds. They all have
their strenghts and weeknesses. What makes Debian the best distribution in
package management is the strict policy that forces developpers to keep
consistancy between different packages and the quality of the provided
packages. Keep it with SRV4 packaging, I don't care. But 'pkg-get' and
'pkg-get dist-upgrade' should be a priority.
3. There is currently a thread about changing some default feature, ie
bash backspace... I don't care neither. I have the impression that some
people think that "oh he's from the Linux world, he must be retarded".
Well, I don't care neither if it's bash, tcsh or whatever. I'll simply
change it if I don't like it. What I want to point here, is that you are
wasting times with minor details!
I'm impatient to work with Dtrace/ZFS/SMF and other technologies, but
currently Solaris doesn't provide, for me, enough 'manageability'. I
simply don't have time to upgrade ~100 servers manualy.
PS: Ian, if you do the same job you did with Debian, trust me I'll give a
try to OpenSolaris :)
--
Francois Saint-Jacques
http://www.networkdump.com
_______________________________________________
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
opensolaris-discuss at opensolaris dot org
|
|
|
|
|
Posts:
1,901
From:
NZ
Registered:
6/16/05
|
|
|
|
Re: [ogb-discuss] Re: Project Proposal - (what is/was
Indiana)
Posted:
May 30, 2007 8:38 PM
in response to: Francois Saint-...
|
|
Hey,
Francois Saint-Jacques wrote:
> 1. 6 month is WAY too short in my opinion. There is nothing more painfull
> than upgrading Fedora core 1 to 6 or Ubuntu abc to xyz while dist-upgrading 3-4
> releases. Update process *should not* take more than 3 hours. I understand
> this is may be impossible with customized/compiled softwares, but a base
> system should update really quickly. I don't want a desktop with the
> lastest Gnome version, I want a stable Solaris derived OS.
I somewhat disagree, and I think the frustration you have is partly due to the
technical limitations of the upgrade process that you've experienced. While I
respect your opinion for wanting a slower moving release, others would probably
disagree. I for one would love to see the latest desktop advances. That's not to
say either of us is wrong to want that, more like some thought needed to figure
out how to handle the various preferences of our userbase.
> 2. Package management is important. I know that Ian already pointed that
> as a priority. This point is tightly related to the first one. Debian is
> one of my favorite, if not my favorite Linux distribution out there. I
> don't want to start a flamewar between dpkg/rpm/pkg/ebuilds. They all have
> their strenghts and weeknesses. What makes Debian the best distribution in
> package management is the strict policy that forces developpers to keep
> consistancy between different packages and the quality of the provided
> packages. Keep it with SRV4 packaging, I don't care. But 'pkg-get' and
> 'pkg-get dist-upgrade' should be a priority.
I think almost everyone would agree with their approach to wanting a well
integrated piece of software, regardless of the packaging formats.
> 3. There is currently a thread about changing some default feature, ie
> bash backspace... I don't care neither. I have the impression that some
> people think that "oh he's from the Linux world, he must be retarded".
> Well, I don't care neither if it's bash, tcsh or whatever. I'll simply
> change it if I don't like it. What I want to point here, is that you are
> wasting times with minor details!
True, but if there are millions of people all changing their default, then does
that mean the default is incorrectly chosen for the majority of people?
> I'm impatient to work with Dtrace/ZFS/SMF and other technologies, but
> currently Solaris doesn't provide, for me, enough 'manageability'. I
> simply don't have time to upgrade ~100 servers manualy.
How would you do it on another platform?
> PS: Ian, if you do the same job you did with Debian, trust me I'll give a
> try to OpenSolaris :)
I don't think anyone should presume it'll be the 'same', but if at the end of
this process we have a well polished distribution that is easy to install, easy
to manage, and works well for everyone, then I'll be pleased.
Glynn
_______________________________________________
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
opensolaris-discuss at opensolaris dot org
|
|
|
|
|
Posts:
50
From:
Registered:
3/17/07
|
|
|
|
Re: [ogb-discuss] Re: Project Proposal - (what is/was
Indiana)
Posted:
May 31, 2007 3:00 AM
in response to: gman
|
|
On 5/30/07, Glynn Foster <Glynn dot Foster at sun dot com> wrote:
> Francois Saint-Jacques wrote:
> > 1. 6 month is WAY too short in my opinion. There is nothing more painfull
> > than upgrading Fedora core 1 to 6 or Ubuntu abc to xyz while dist-upgrading 3-4
> > releases. Update process *should not* take more than 3 hours. I understand
> > this is may be impossible with customized/compiled softwares, but a base
> > system should update really quickly. I don't want a desktop with the
> > lastest Gnome version, I want a stable Solaris derived OS.
>
> I somewhat disagree, and I think the frustration you have is partly due to the
> technical limitations of the upgrade process that you've experienced. While I
> respect your opinion for wanting a slower moving release, others would probably
> disagree. I for one would love to see the latest desktop advances. That's not to
> say either of us is wrong to want that, more like some thought needed to figure
> out how to handle the various preferences of our userbase.
The slower moving release will be called "Solaris". :-)
-ian
--
Ian Murdock
650-331-9324
http://ianmurdock.com/
"Don't look back--something might be gaining on you." --Satchel Paige
_______________________________________________
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
opensolaris-discuss at opensolaris dot org
|
|
|
|
|
Posts:
1,091
From:
CA
Registered:
4/27/05
|
|
|
|
Re: [ogb-discuss] Re: Project Proposal - (what is/was
Indiana)
Posted:
May 31, 2007 9:37 AM
in response to: imurdock
|
|
On Thu, 31 May 2007, Ian Murdock wrote:
> The slower moving release will be called "Solaris". :-)
As long as it isn't called "Slowaris"! :-)
--
Rich Teer, SCSA, SCNA, SCSECA, OGB member
CEO,
My Online Home Inventory
Voice: +1 (250) 979-1638
URLs: http://www.rite-group.com/rich
http://www.myonlinehomeinventory.com
_______________________________________________
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
opensolaris-discuss at opensolaris dot org
|
|
|
|
|
Francois Saint-...
mailing@networkdump....
|
|
|
|
Re: [ogb-discuss] Re: Project Proposal - (what is/was
Indiana)
Posted:
May 31, 2007 7:18 AM
in response to: gman
|
|
Hello,
On Thu, May 31, 2007 at 03:38:03PM +1200, Glynn Foster wrote:
> I somewhat disagree, and I think the frustration you have is partly due to the
> technical limitations of the upgrade process that you've experienced. While I
> respect your opinion for wanting a slower moving release, others would probably
> disagree. I for one would love to see the latest desktop advances. That's not to
> say either of us is wrong to want that, more like some thought needed to figure
> out how to handle the various preferences of our userbase.
Not to be rude, but Sun won't invent a process to fly from New York to
Paris without having to go over the Atlantic/Pacific ocean. That said,
you will always have to go trought each release in the update process,
unless you have a 'multi-backward-version-update-aware' packaging system,
which is going to be a mess since it breaks the universal rule: Keep it
simple.
Debian has the concept of different repository branch
(stable,testing,unstable). If you prefer a bleeding edge system then chose
testing or unstable. You could base your packaging system on the same
concept: unstable and testing are fast moving, while stable is based on
the testing release that has been tested by a user base.
Also, I would like to know if users are more interested in OpenSolaris
has desktop or server use? Nexenta devs are currently focusing their work
on a server release, because they've realized that users wanted a server
distribution. I can't answer this question since I did not follow the
community since it's beginning.
> I think almost everyone would agree with their approach to wanting a well
> integrated piece of software, regardless of the packaging formats.
I'll be actively following the list. Focus on this point, this is really
important especially agaisn't other Linux which have solved this problem
4-5 (if more) years ago.
> True, but if there are millions of people all changing their default, then does
> that mean the default is incorrectly chosen for the majority of people?
I only wanted to emphasis that theses are minors details.
> How would you do it on another platform?
apt-get update && apt-get upgrade && apt-get dist-upgrade
Depending on what softwares you updated, you may have to recompile
manually compiled softwares due to glibc upgrade. I assume this shouldn't
be a problem on Solaris since you shouldn't break libc API.
If the upgrades goes well, it can takes between 30 minutes to 1 hour.
> polished distribution that is easy to install, easy
> to manage, and works well for everyone, then I'll be pleased.
That's exactly what I'm looking for, not a 1-1 copy of Debian.
--
Francois Saint-Jacques
http://www.networkdump.com
_______________________________________________
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
opensolaris-discuss at opensolaris dot org
|
|
|
|
|
Posts:
50
From:
Registered:
3/17/07
|
|
|
|
Re: [ogb-discuss] Project Proposal - (what is/was
Indiana)
Posted:
May 31, 2007 6:22 PM
in response to: gman
|
|
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 operating system in its own right.
Multiple implementations (distros) can still exist, but they must
remain compatible with each other to use the name OpenSolaris.
Some people here think #1. Other people here think #2. So, it appears
we're at a decision point. How exactly does the "community decide"? Just
wondering, because that isn't entirely clear to me. And if there's no clear
answer to that, then something's very wrong, because in the absence
of clear decision making processes, we're just going to argue
endlessly. If you want more details on why this thread
worries me, see http://www.linuxformat.co.uk/murdockint.html).
P.S. - The decision really isn't as stark as that just yet. All we're
asking for is a project where we can *explore* #2..
-ian
--
Ian Murdock
650-331-9324
http://ianmurdock.com/
"Don't look back--something might be gaining on you." --Satchel Paige
_______________________________________________
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
opensolaris-discuss at opensolaris dot org
|
|
|
|
|
Posts:
818
From:
San Francisco CA US
Registered:
3/9/05
|
|
|
|
Re: [ogb-discuss] Project Proposal - (what is/was
Indiana)
Posted:
May 31, 2007 7:02 PM
in response to: imurdock
|
|
On Thu, May 31, 2007 at 09:22:20PM -0400, 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 operating system in its own right.
> Multiple implementations (distros) can still exist, but they must
> remain compatible with each other to use the name OpenSolaris.
>
> Some people here think #1. Other people here think #2. So, it appears
> we're at a decision point. How exactly does the "community decide"? Just
> wondering, because that isn't entirely clear to me. And if there's no clear
> answer to that, then something's very wrong, because in the absence
> of clear decision making processes, we're just going to argue
> endlessly. If you want more details on why this thread
> worries me, see http://www.linuxformat.co.uk/murdockint.html).
Since we're currently at (1), the question is really "If someone
wanted to change the policy to (2), how would that decision be made?"
Because although it shouldn't be so, this decision must be considered
differently depending on the direction in which the policy is being
shifted.
There are two components to what you suggest (I'll write here as if
you're the champion of option (2), since that seems to be the case).
First, having the OpenSolaris community as a whole endorse a
particular distribution as that reference, or canonical distribution.
Pick a different term if you prefer, but that's what it sounds like
you're proposing. That decision would be made in the form of a policy
by the OGB. In effect, that policy would state that distribution XXX
managed by the YYY Community Group is the reference OpenSolaris
distribution. The process for making decisions like that is loosely
spelled out in the Constitution - in effect, the OGB is expected to
listen to its constituency and employ a combination of free-form
discussion here and parliamentary procedure in formal meetings to
reach policy decisions.
Second, and more difficult to cope with, is the restriction on the use
of the OpenSolaris name. As you know, Sun owns and controls that
name. So whatever the OGB or anyone else might prefer as a policy,
Sun and no one else can dictate how the name can be used. I believe
at present it's a fairly permissive regime. A change could be
requested by you, by the OGB (the formal liaison with Sun), or by
someone acting solely on behalf of Sun. The actual decision to
implement this change cannot be made openly or by us; a decision to
request it could be made, and would follow a process similar to that I
described above.
> P.S. - The decision really isn't as stark as that just yet. All we're
> asking for is a project where we can *explore* #2..
It seems to me (speaking personally now) that you'd be best positioned
to start exploring a reference distribution by first exploring the
mechanics of making a distribution. That is, by writing some code,
and taking your ideas, your prototype, and the problems you've
encountered along the way to one or more of the Community Groups for
help and advice, and by actually diving in and starting to understand
what OpenSolaris is and how it works at a technical level. Obviously,
I'm familiar with your background and respect what you've
accomplished. But I do think it's fair to say that this is a rather
different environment, one with its own technical challenges.
If the Project Instantiation process were working here (instead of
being worked around), it would have put you in touch with Groups whose
members have worked on some of these problems in the past and are
familiar with the technologies involved. One of them would agree to
sponsor your project and send a simple statement of what you hope to
accomplish to us to be announced. You'd then go off and write some
code to start implementing your vision, knowing who to talk with when
you get stuck. As you start to have something to demonstrate,
something to discuss, interest in your work will grow, along with your
project team. As that happens, you can begin to drive consensus
around how things ought to work. That's around the time I'd think it
reasonable to start contemplating the whole question of whether your
thing should be a reference distribution or not.
--
Keith M Wesolowski "Sir, we're surrounded!"
FishWorks "Excellent; we can attack in any direction!"
_______________________________________________
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
opensolaris-discuss at opensolaris dot org
|
|
|
|
|
Posts:
50
From:
Registered:
3/17/07
|
|
|
|
Re: [ogb-discuss] Project Proposal - (what is/was
Indiana)
Posted:
Jun 1, 2007 3:11 AM
in response to: wesolows
|
|
On 5/31/07, Keith M Wesolowski <keith dot wesolowski at sun dot com> wrote:
> On Thu, May 31, 2007 at 09:22:20PM -0400, 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 operating system in its own right.
> > Multiple implementations (distros) can still exist, but they must
> > remain compatible with each other to use the name OpenSolaris.
> >
> > Some people here think #1. Other people here think #2. So, it appears
> > we're at a decision point. How exactly does the "community decide"? Just
> > wondering, because that isn't entirely clear to me. And if there's no clear
> > answer to that, then something's very wrong, because in the absence
> > of clear decision making processes, we're just going to argue
> > endlessly. If you want more details on why this thread
> > worries me, see http://www.linuxformat.co.uk/murdockint.html).
>
> Since we're currently at (1), the question is really "If someone
> wanted to change the policy to (2), how would that decision be made?"
> Because although it shouldn't be so, this decision must be considered
> differently depending on the direction in which the policy is being
> shifted.
>
> There are two components to what you suggest (I'll write here as if
> you're the champion of option (2), since that seems to be the case).
> First, having the OpenSolaris community as a whole endorse a
> particular distribution as that reference, or canonical distribution.
> Pick a different term if you prefer, but that's what it sounds like
> you're proposing. That decision would be made in the form of a policy
> by the OGB. In effect, that policy would state that distribution XXX
> managed by the YYY Community Group is the reference OpenSolaris
> distribution. The process for making decisions like that is loosely
> spelled out in the Constitution - in effect, the OGB is expected to
> listen to its constituency and employ a combination of free-form
> discussion here and parliamentary procedure in formal meetings to
> reach policy decisions.
>
> Second, and more difficult to cope with, is the restriction on the use
> of the OpenSolaris name. As you know, Sun owns and controls that
> name. So whatever the OGB or anyone else might prefer as a policy,
> Sun and no one else can dictate how the name can be used. I believe
> at present it's a fairly permissive regime. A change could be
> requested by you, by the OGB (the formal liaison with Sun), or by
> someone acting solely on behalf of Sun. The actual decision to
> implement this change cannot be made openly or by us; a decision to
> request it could be made, and would follow a process similar to that I
> described above.
That's a very long answer to a very simple question. To summarize,
"the community decides" means majority vote of the OGB membership?
> > P.S. - The decision really isn't as stark as that just yet. All we're
> > asking for is a project where we can *explore* #2..
>
> It seems to me (speaking personally now) that you'd be best positioned
> to start exploring a reference distribution by first exploring the
> mechanics of making a distribution. That is, by writing some code,
> and taking your ideas, your prototype, and the problems you've
> encountered along the way to one or more of the Community Groups for
> help and advice, and by actually diving in and starting to understand
> what OpenSolaris is and how it works at a technical level. Obviously,
> I'm familiar with your background and respect what you've
> accomplished. But I do think it's fair to say that this is a rather
> different environment, one with its own technical challenges.
>
> If the Project Instantiation process were working here (instead of
> being worked around), it would have put you in touch with Groups whose
> members have worked on some of these problems in the past and are
> familiar with the technologies involved. One of them would agree to
> sponsor your project and send a simple statement of what you hope to
> accomplish to us to be announced. You'd then go off and write some
> code to start implementing your vision, knowing who to talk with when
> you get stuck. As you start to have something to demonstrate,
> something to discuss, interest in your work will grow, along with your
> project team. As that happens, you can begin to drive consensus
> around how things ought to work. That's around the time I'd think it
> reasonable to start contemplating the whole question of whether your
> thing should be a reference distribution or not.
So, we should go do the initial work inside Sun before proceeding?
-ian
--
Ian Murdock
650-331-9324
http://ianmurdock.com/
"Don't look back--something might be gaining on you." --Satchel Paige
_______________________________________________
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
opensolaris-discuss at opensolaris dot org
|
|
|
|
|
Doug Scott
dougs@truemail.co.th
|
|
|
|
Re: Re: [ogb-discuss] Project Proposal - (what is/was
Indiana)
Posted:
May 31, 2007 7:04 PM
in response to: imurdock
|
|
What is stopping this project starting?
From what I can see is that the OGB have approved a new project
proposal method and they want to start using it. The one real problem I
can see with this is while it is approved, I can not see where it is
officially published. What the hell. Let's try to follow it anyway.
Reading though the posts all Glynn actually needs is a positive vote
from the core contributors of a sponsoring community and the OGB will
approve it.
Since Glynn's amended proposal identifies the desktop community as the
sponsor for the project, does all he have to do is to ask the
core-contributors of that community for a vote? If so, bring it on and
lets move on.
Doug
_______________________________________________
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
opensolaris-discuss at opensolaris dot org
|
|
|
|
|
Posts:
2,060
From:
Registered:
6/8/05
|
|
|
|
Re: Re: [ogb-discuss] Project Proposal - (what is/was
Indiana)
Posted:
May 31, 2007 7:21 PM
in response to: imurdock
|
|
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 operating system in its own right.
> Multiple implementations (distros) can still exist, but they must
> remain compatible with each other to use the name OpenSolaris.
>
> Some people here think #1. Other people here think #2. So, it appears
> we're at a decision point. How exactly does the "community decide"? Just
> wondering, because that isn't entirely clear to me. And if there's no
> clear
> answer to that, then something's very wrong, because in the absence
> of clear decision making processes, we're just going to argue
> endlessly. If you want more details on why this thread
> worries me, see http://www.linuxformat.co.uk/murdockint.html).
>
> P.S. - The decision really isn't as stark as that just yet. All we're
> asking for is a project where we can *explore* #2..
I think our problem here is the word "OpenSolaris" and that
some people have particular "ideas" about what it should be.
Is it a community?
Is it source code?
Is it binaries?
What is it?
(These are rhetorical questions, if you want to answer
this then please blog about it in depth.)
Perhaps what this community needs to do is have a distribution
that includes OpenSolaris, be built/designed/refined by the
OpenSolaris community, but that goes by another name
(since it appears that it is names that are of concern.)
This lets us say that "OpenSolaris is a source code thing only"
but at the same time say "X is the reference distribution of
OpenSolaris by the OpenSolaris community".
(I'm hoping this lets us get away from arguing about what
"OpenSolaris" *is* or *isn't*.)
If we are to say that "Project Indiana" is the reference
distribution of OpenSolaris then that solves the naming
problem - well of the project, at least :) But I don't
know if that usurps the intent of what you're intending
with Indiana or not. If it does then we need to start
a new project. Either way, we should probably have a
vote (at some later point in time, if this strategy has
merit) on a collection of suggestions for what the final
reference thing is called.
I think taking that approach lets people be happy that
OpenSolaris is just source code but at the same time
it provides the community with the means to define
what the base components of a distribution of
OpenSolaris are to be.
Afterall, a name is just a name, and if Linux can be
bundled under Fedora, SuSE, Ubuntu, etc, and still
shine on, why should this community feel like it
needs to use OpenSolaris for everything?
Darren
_______________________________________________
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
opensolaris-discuss at opensolaris dot org
|
|
|
|
|
Posts:
101
From:
IT
Registered:
9/21/05
|
|
|
|
Re: Re: [ogb-discuss] Project Proposal - (what is/was
Indiana)
Posted:
Jun 1, 2007 7:37 AM
in response to: darrenr
To: OpenSolaris » discuss
|
|
Hi Darren,hi community
IMHO the role of Opensolaris in opensource communities is not clear.It seems to be something like a different mode for Sun to promote Solaris and not an independent community.
Which is exactly the goal of this Commuity? An entire CDDL opensource system like freebsd (1) or a Solaris opensource subsystem like kernel dot org (2)?
1) The first choice would a complete builtable OS from source,from kernel to Gnome *entirely* driven by opensolaris community.
2) This choice requires to add GPL(v3?) license to opensolaris system and offer it as (better) alternative than linux kernel.
I don't understand the role and the goals of Indiana like "binary opensolaris distro".Out of here the sources are a prerequisites for every opensource community.The Idea about "only binary" is dangerous:It could be a clear message to potentially reject every collaborative work between Sun,OpenSolaris community and the rest of open world (communities and single developer).
Giacomo
|
|
|
|
|
Posts:
1,154
From:
US
Registered:
6/14/05
|
|
|
|
Re: Re: Re: [ogb-discuss] Project Proposal - (what
is/was Indiana)
Posted:
Jun 1, 2007 8:08 AM
in response to: axposf
|
|
On 01/06/07, De Togni Giacomo <phenix_dtg at virgilio dot it> wrote:
> 2) This choice requires to add GPL(v3?) license to opensolaris system and offer it as (better) alternative than linux kernel.
>
I fail to see how #2 would require a license change; such a suggestion
seems dishonest at best.
--
"Less is only more where more is no good." --Frank Lloyd Wright
Shawn Walker, Software and Systems Analyst
binarycrusader at gmail dot com - http://binarycrusader.blogspot.com/
_______________________________________________
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
opensolaris-discuss at opensolaris dot org
|
|
|
|
|
Posts:
101
From:
IT
Registered:
9/21/05
|
|
|
|
Re: Re: Re: [ogb-discuss] Project Proposal - (what
is/was Indiana)
Posted:
Jun 1, 2007 8:56 AM
in response to: swalker
To: OpenSolaris » discuss
|
|
I believe you've lost the role of GPL in Linux world: it is something like a unquestionable condition,a prerequisite to work.So, is hard to imagine Solaris kernel fight with Linux without same conditions.Personally I prefer to see CDDL everywhere but it is my opinion (one) against an entire linux world.
Giacomo
|
|
|
|
|
Posts:
101
From:
IT
Registered:
9/21/05
|
|
|
|
Re: Re: Re: [ogb-discuss] Project Proposal - (what
is/was Indiana)
Posted:
Jun 1, 2007 8:57 AM
in response to: swalker
To: OpenSolaris » discuss
|
|
I believe you've lost the role of GPL in Linux world: it is something like a unquestionable condition,a prerequisite to work.So, is hard to imagine Solaris kernel fight with Linux without same conditions.Personally I prefer to see CDDL everywhere but it is my opinion (one) against an entire linux world.
Giacomo
|
|
|
|
|
Posts:
764
From:
US
Registered:
9/21/05
|
|
|
|
Re: Re: [ogb-discuss] Project Proposal - (what is/was
Indiana)
Posted:
May 31, 2007 8:19 PM
in response to: imurdock
|
|
> P.S. - The decision really isn't as stark as that just yet. All we're
> asking for is a project where we can *explore* #2..
:) You don't need a project to do this. We are sorta exploring right now.
I suggest using approachability-discuss as your CG mailing list to
start your exploration.
Go ahead and do this in parallel to harping about how much the
existing processes suck.
I would also suggest that you make it clear when ever you start a
thread there that you request that those we are not interested in
seeing this initiative move forward, keep there responses out of that
thread. (Well, constructive criticism is ok, if it is aimed to help us
get to where we want to go.
Let's start exploring!! Once we've got our thoughts a bit clearer,
then we can come back to get "Project approval".
I am going to start a new thread as soon as I send this. Anyone
interested should reply to the thread. (The thread will simply be
"Like minded individuals let's talk about an OpenSolaris Reference
Distro") I will not be cc'ing OGB-discuss.
brian
P.S. - Please feel free to continue this conversation about process in
parallel. I am going to try and focus on getting a conversation going
regarding moving forward with the reference build.
_______________________________________________
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
opensolaris-discuss at opensolaris dot org
|
|
|
|
|
Posts:
528
From:
CA
Registered:
12/22/05
|
|
|
|
Re: Project Proposal - (what is/was Indiana)
Posted:
May 31, 2007 9:37 PM
in response to: gman
To: OpenSolaris » discuss
|
|
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 from and other times is entirely useless ( "see description" isn't a useful description ), and a code repo which is similarly behind sun's walls.
As for the distro idea itself, if sun wants to build another distro, that's their perogative, but we already have a couple fine unencumbered distros as it is ( BeleniX, Nexenta ), so what's the point of this one, beyond another product that Sun Microsystems can sell support for?
> Hey,
>
> Here's the project proposal that should have been out
> a long while back
> (apologies, I'm happy to take the blame on this one).
> Before anyone gets too
> caught up in how little the proposal actually covers,
> I intend to follow up with
> my thoughts if and when the project alias gets
> created - I'd like that
> discussion to be far more focused than
> opensolaris-discuss has been.
>
>
> Glynn
>
> ==
>
> 1.1 Summary
>
> This project proposes to create an OpenSolaris
> binary distribution,
> previously known as 'Project Indiana'.
> 2 Description
>
> This project proposes to create an OpenSolaris
> binary distribution
> with a long term goal of increasing the userbase
> and growing
> mindshare in the volume market by providing easy
> access to the
> technology created within the OpenSolaris
> community.
> A 6 monthly time based release schedule will
> focus energies in producing
> a single CD install, and putting OpenSolaris on a
> path to being a
> distribution as well as a source base. With a
> focus on the user experience,
> it is hoped that with wide distribution, the
> OpenSolaris ecosystem will
> grow, providing valuable feedback to the project.
> This project is expected to be long term, with
> regular releases and
> regular goals with a focus on closing the
> familiarity gap for new
> users of the platform, but also compatible to
> Solaris users today.
> This project will have an emphasis on release
> engineering process
> and infrastructure initially, coupled with some
> user visible
> improvements to the existing pain points within
> Solaris.
>
> 1.3 Sponsors
>
> This project has a lot of overlap with a number
> of Community Groups in
> terms of technology but has particularly strong
> links to the
> 'Distributions & Packaging' Community Group.
> 4 Involvement
>
> There is a strong intention for this to be a
> community grass roots
> project, with open contribution. We hope for this
> project to be
> consensus driven, though ultimately the project
> leads will need
> to dictate direction if that proves unfeasible for
> delivering
> a timely release. 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.
> 5 Related Projects
>
> This project will, over time, start to include
> many of the existing
> projects that are already being worked upon and
> stable enough to
> include under the opensolaris.org umbrella,
> encouraging the best
> innovation within the community.
> 6 Other
>
> With this proposal there is an opportunity to
> create a base
> distribution that other community groups can
> re-distribute for
> their own needs. This distribution proposal hopes
> to draw
> together existing innovations across the
> OpenSolaris
> community, encouraging collaboration and
> communication.
> ______________________________________________
> opensolaris-discuss mailing list
> opensolaris-discuss at opensolaris dot org
>
|
|
|
|
|
Giles Turner
freetown@gmail.com
|
|
|
|
Re: Re: Project Proposal - (what is/was Indiana)
Posted:
May 31, 2007 10:40 PM
in response to: error404
|
|
On 6/1/07, John Sonnenschein <johnsonnenschein at gmail dot com> 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 moving in that direction from
what I see. I do feel that a distro to jump start a larger user base
that is different from Sun's current clients. I do not see why Sun
being involved in it would drive new users away unless Sun adds enough
strings to their OpenSolaris distro such that they discourage new
users.
>
> As it stands we have a bug database behind sun's firewall that stuff occasionally goes missing from and other times is entirely useless ( "see description" isn't a useful description ), and a code repo which is similarly behind sun's walls.
That is another problem and not related to this thread. Please start
your own thread if you must.
>
> As for the distro idea itself, if sun wants to build another distro, that's their perogative, but we already have a couple fine unencumbered distros as it is ( BeleniX, Nexenta ), so what's the point of this one, beyond another product that Sun Microsystems can sell support for?
Even if it is only so that Sun Microsystems can sell support for it,
it is not unreasonable for the parent to get a little something back
from their child.
_______________________________________________
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
opensolaris-discuss at opensolaris dot org
|
|
|
|
|
Doug Scott
dougs@truemail.co.th
|
|
|
|
Re: Re: Project Proposal - (what is/was Indiana)
Posted:
May 31, 2007 10:50 PM
in response to: error404
|
|
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
not participate or download anything which comes from this project. That
is your choice.
> As it stands we have a bug database behind sun's firewall that stuff occasionally goes missing from and other times is entirely useless ( "see description" isn't a useful description ), and a code repo which is similarly behind sun's walls.
>
>
I do not think that you will get too many arguments with what you say
about the current bug database, but what has this got to do with this
project proposal?
> As for the distro idea itself, if sun wants to build another distro, that's their perogative, but we already have a couple fine unencumbered distros as it is ( BeleniX, Nexenta ), so what's the point of this one, beyond another product that Sun Microsystems can sell support for?
>
Yes we do have BeleniX and Nexenta. Just because we have them,
does/should not exclude anybody creating a new distribution. You can
always vote with your feet.
Doug
_______________________________________________
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
opensolaris-discuss at opensolaris dot org
|
|
|
|
|
Posts:
528
From:
CA
Registered:
12/22/05
|
|
|
|
Re: Project Proposal - (what is/was Indiana)
Posted:
Jun 1, 2007 12:41 AM
in response to: error404
To: OpenSolaris » discuss
|
|
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 reference distribution by the name OpenSolaris is dangerous ( does that mean that Belenix /isn't/ opensolaris? ).
I also have huge fears that this becomes just another Sun product that we can only watch, lacking real non-sun community contributions ( which is the heart of my complaints about tools )
|
|
|
|
|
Giles Turner
freetown@gmail.com
|
|
|
|
Re: Re: Project Proposal - (what is/was Indiana)
Posted:
Jun 1, 2007 1:02 AM
in response to: error404
|
|
> 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 have huge fears that this becomes just another Sun product that we can only watch, lacking real non-sun community contributions ( which i | | | |
