seth Nimbosa <[email protected]> wrote: > The reason we need a minimum of criteria for collaboration is precisely > because the different distributions have different focus, approach, and use > case scenarios in mind, but a set of core features that will make it to a > unified kernel will be for everyone's benefit. Additional layers will be > built upon this basic core and the abstraction of these feature-sets and > their encapsulation from the layers below and above it will ensure that > there is more or less a predictable and uniform way each of these layers > interact together and how they behave on top of the core. I mean each > distro-specific feature-set will be spun out and encapsulated into separate > layers of development on top of the kernel (and these layers will be > slightly or wildly different in each distribution) but the core will remain > mainly intact but dynamically developed jointly by the different distros in > an upstream manner.
Layers can be put on top of something that is able to support the potential layers. If you e.g. create a too small floor slab, you will have no space for a terrace at your house. If we like to have success with a common development base, we need to create such a base in a way that does not prevent some of the participants from implementing their goals. This of course only works if the participants have a veto right for changes that might compromise their goals. Do you believe that we will be able to have a moderated discussion that leads to such a common base? I suspect that this is the most critical part. > The tug and pull of Jorg and Peter's arguments is healthy for our > community. This way we can strike a balance between the tyranical standard > approach with a rigid set of feature compliance and the very fuzzy > definition of what OpenSolaris-based distros are evolving into. By keeping > our criteria for collaboration at a minimum, we are inviting more synergy > between developers on the basic general stuff and at the same time > promoting more choices how to implement different solutions to the same > familiar problems and opening more ways to implement new solutions to needs > unforeseen or poorly addresed before. Such a minimum will not be created if the common base is missing features. We need to find a way to agree on what must be in the minimum set of the common base and we need to agree on how to add new things. > > I am willing to give other people enough room and I guess that you would > do the same. So let us see whether OI is willing to colaborate. As I > mentioned since a long time: OpenSolaris has not enough people to make each > job twice, so we need to collaborate if we like OpenSolaris to survive. > ???> > ???> > ???> Jörg > > We must put this to practice. > I believe the best is yet to come for free OpenSolaris-based systems. I mentioned that we would need a moderator, if you take this role, let's see what we can achieve. Jörg -- EMail:[email protected] (home) Jörg Schilling D-13353 Berlin [email protected] (uni) [email protected] (work) Blog: http://schily.blogspot.com/ URL: http://cdrecord.berlios.de/private/ ftp://ftp.berlios.de/pub/schily ------------------------------------------- illumos-discuss Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/182180/=now RSS Feed: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/182180/21175430-2e6923be Modify Your Subscription: https://www.listbox.com/member/?member_id=21175430&id_secret=21175430-6a77cda4 Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
