On Thu, 2007-05-31 at 14:30 -0700, Stephen Hahn wrote: > * Brendan Gregg - Sun Microsystems <brendan at Sun.COM> [2007-05-31 14:20]: > > G'Day Folks, > > > > On Thu, May 31, 2007 at 01:11:21PM -0700, Stephen Hahn wrote: > > > * Christopher Frost <frostcs at gmail.com> [2007-05-31 12:55]: > > > > We have been brainstorming a little bit recently about the > > > > direction of > > > > a Wiki being integrated into the OpenSolaris Structure. > > > > > > > > Currently we have a brief option listing at > > > > http://www.genunix.org/wiki/index.php/OpenSolarisWiki > > > > Which any volunteer/community-member has a right to comment on. > > > > > > > > I will be proposing a community sponsored project in the immediate > > > > future and hope to gather a few more volunteers, a few more comments, > > > > and perhaps a the support of the tools community. > > > > > > > > I feel this is something the community should have input in, and not > > > > just internal Sun staff. The Sun staff should take part in the > > > > community, not have the community take part in Sun. > > > > > > > > Feel free to speak your mind. > > > > > > The Tools CG already sponsors the Website Project for specifically > > > this purpose. A key aspect of a new project proposal (that expects to > > > gain Tools CG sponsorship) would be to answer what deficits in the > > > existing project motivate the creation of a new one, and what attempts > > > were made to correct those deficits previously by the proposers? > > > > This seems reasonable (although I'm probably not the best person to > > answer): > > > > Deficits in the existing OpenSolaris editor (Tonic editor?): > > > > - ACLs > > - edit history, revision diffs > > - good markup language (a better TML?) > > - section edits > > - export to XML (PDF, DocBook) > > - customisable look-and-feel > > - performance issues (timeouts, latency) > > > > Any of the leading wikis, such as MediaWiki, would solve most or all of > > these. > > > > What attempts were made to correct these so far: > > > > I don't know who has tried what exactly. It would be news to me if all > > of these can be fixed on the current software. > > Just to be clear: these are deficits in the software, not deficits of > the effort to improve and operate the software. The set of items > under consideration for the latter include the mail forums, the file > hosting, the SCM hosting, workflow development, and so forth. The > document content is a single component in that set. > The software has the deficits then. What efforts had been proposed by the software company, prior to the integration with opensolaris.org, to correct these? Or was it just proposed to be an unhappy customer project? Pulling apart the software apart to write open-source code from a previous project sounds also like a parallel project to the initial integration of this software. Assuming of course that this wasn't on the road-map when the software was purchased.
> There has been previous mail on our efforts to get the source out, so > that we can have a technical discussion on how to excise old > components and replace them with new ones. Starting a parallel > project that ignores our current technical state may or may not be > complete; to be honest, I'm having trouble reconciling the desire for > finite project lengths with the existence of obviously long-running > efforts. > > In my recollection, > > http://mail.opensolaris.org/pipermail/website-discuss/2007-March/003119.html > > was the most recent message on the source release; as I understand it, > we're going through various time-expensive Legal processes to complete > this work. I am having trouble linking a plural subject you have here "we", I've looked through a bit of website discuss, and the best entity I can link that to is "Sun Microsystems", or am I misrepresenting the subject in that sentence? If so, should the community be more fluent in the structure discussion? In other words, at what point do we choose to replace a broken car with a new one, rather then fixing it? Would you suggest an amendment to the focus of the website-project be more appropriate then a 'parallel' project? Though, even an amendment wouldn't be able to do anything about the "must be written in Java" rule, right? I am trying to find the origin of this rule, but I can't seem to see it documented in the Website-project proposal, or elsewhere. My apologies if some of these questions are redundant, the information on the project page seems to be scarce compared to some other community projects. If I can comment, a FAQ might be helpful to answer some of these questions. Thank You, Christopher Frost
