Cyril Plisko wrote:
> [Removing PSARC-ext, and adding arc-discuss since it does seem to be
> related to the case anymore]
>
>
> On Thu, Nov 5, 2009 at 8:35 PM, Garrett D'Amore <Garrett.Damore at sun.com>
> wrote:
>
>> I'm not going to disagree with your sentiments... but to date there are many
>> situations where Sun's business interests trump those of the community. As
>> long as the ON consolidation is staffed entirely by folks who owe allegiance
>> to Sun (or its successors), then it will be hard to effect any change that
>> allows the community to integrate "community sustained" sources.
>>
>
> Why ? What is the reason for that ? BTW, what is the exact definition
> of "ON consolidation staff" ?
> I do not seem to be able to find this on h.o.o
>
The CRT advocates, ON C-Team, etc. The ON consolidation is really an
SMI entity. Other people contribute to it, but there are parts beyond.
The fact that there is a closed-source component to ON further
underscores this fact.
>
>> At the end of the day, its not clear to me that this is really that great of
>> a problem. Its perfectly reasonable to create other consolidation with
>> non-Sun sources (or with sources that Sun doesn't approve of) that live side
>> by side with ON. There is no intrinsic need that legacy hardware support
>> stuff has to be in ON.
>>
>
> On the one hand I pretty much agree with you, heck, I very much agree with
> you.
> On the other hand the idea that OpenSolaris ON consolidation is driven
> entirely by Sun business needs just doesn't feel correct.
>
>
Sun business needs trump this consolidation. So far those business
needs *mostly* align with the desires of the community. At the end of
the day, if the community wants to fork the open portions of the ON
consolidation, they are free to do so. (This has actually already been
done.)
-- Garrett
