John Plocher wrote: > [Remember, this all is simply my opinion; if I am off base, oblivious or > otherwise being more thick headed than usual, feel free to whap me up > 'side the head and tell me to get with the program....] > > Alan Coopersmith wrote: > > But OpenSolaris is not just...oh I give up. > > Sorry about hitting your "OpenSolaris is more than just ON" hot button... > > The OpenSolaris.org community was created to be a home for Solaris. > Solaris is just one of many things that Sun is open sourcing, and it is > distinct from OpenFirmware, OpenSPARC, OpenJava and the others. I > don't think anyone is suggesting that > OpenSolaris.Org become a single uber-community for all of these > disparate efforts. I'm certainly not!
No, certainly not. > On the other hand, OpenSolaris is becoming home for more consolidations > than just ON - JDS, SFW and the admin /install all quickly come to > mind. The question on the table is how to best manage the architectural > invention and evolution that is happening in all parts of our extended > set of communities. Yes. > Within Sun we have self-organized into several ARCs for various > specialization, organizational and load balancing reasons; those > reasons may or may not be valid "out here". > So far, we have been experimenting with PSARC, and have determined that > it needs to split into two parts - the traditional Sun-internal closed > PSARC and the new OpenSolaris ARC being discussed here. With, one would hope, use of the internal side being exceptionally rare in practice. > The next question that comes up is > > Do we wish to have more than one ARC community in OpenSolaris? > > If not, we should call it something like "the OpenSolaris ARC" or OSARC > or just plain ARC, and staff it with ALL the core community members. > This is my preferred direction, but it presumes that OpenSolaris won't > become another SourceForge collection of unrelated projects. I have a couple of concerns here. Specialization still applies, I think. Someone with appropriate experience and knowledge to be a member of a PSARC-like entity may not be appropriate in an LSARC-like entity, for instance (talking membership here, not merely taking part in discussion...). How would this interact with historical differences between the bodies? (think the different ways Evolving is now spelled, depending on your venue, and any other such things that I don't know about) > If we do want multiple ARCs, we need to figure out how we will > differentiate between them. Rhetorically, would it make sense correlate > specific consolidations or Communities to specific ARCs? Does it make > sense to have a "Zones ARC" and/or a "JDS ARC"? If we did this, what > kind of relationship would/should there be between the "JDS ARC" and the > Gnome Community development processes? Certainly not to the degree of "Zones ARC...". I could perhaps understand Desktop v. OS v. ..., however. (for all practical purposes, that would be the PSARC v. LSARC split, in so far as it meets opensolaris) > Creating an OpenSolaris presence for the other "Sun ARCS" has its own > problems. I get confused when I try to follow the implications to their > logical conclusions: If we were to create a WSARC at opensolaris.org, > wouldn't we also have to create another WSARC sub-community for > J2ee at java.com (where a major WSARC constituency lives), another > @Java.Net, another @JCP.org, ... ? How would a WSARC member deal > with this complexity? If LSARC were to become the JDS ARC, what > would/should happen to the rest of the traditional LSARC caseload: > Explorer, SunVTS, Woodstock, the open source database stuff, NetBeans, > the compilers, SunMC, Cacao, etc? If LSARC were purely moved in part outside, I assume these would be closed cases at LSARC, just as a JDS case would be an open case at LSARC. > Mostly because I don't have good answers for these questions, I'd rather > not divide the OpenSolaris architecture effort into factions at the > beginning - there isn't the volume of participation (either at the case > or membership levels) to warrant it yet. And if the need does arise, we > can address it then. My hope is that uses of the open infrastructure immediately grows to equal that handled by PSARC, plus the sub-set of cases handled by LSARC that are opensolaris related. The question in my mind, in part, is "How likely is it that splitting things up will again be desirable, and if that happens how painful would it be?" I'm not sure I have answers, however. -- Rich
