Danek Duvall writes:
> On Wed, Sep 12, 2007 at 11:12:29PM +0100, Peter Tribble wrote:
> > Well, I have to say that one reason for that is the fairly widespread
> > knowledge that there has been work being done inside Sun on a
> > new packaging technology, so why should we invest effort in working
> > on the existing tools?
> 
> If you truly don't believe that we're capable of doing it, or think we're
> going about it in the wrong way and won't listen to anyone else, those are
> pretty good reasons.  From some of the comments I've seen, it may be that
> people feel this way (without talking to someone in person, it can be hard
> to tell).  Hopefully we can now start (are starting?) to dispel the issues.

It probably doesn't make a difference at this point, but I think that,
in terms of working with an open source project, presenting a worked
example to a community group and saying in effect "we've done some
work you will want; please endorse this" presents a naturally higher
resistance path than developing the idea itself in the group -- in the
open.

It's hard for the community group's members to know that their
concerns have been considered in the initial requirements analysis if
they weren't actually involved in that process, and thus it's not
necessarily clear that the proposal solves the problem that the group
believes needs to be solved.  They're forced, on the spot, to
recapitulate all of the development decisions you've already made over
the weeks or months you've been considering the project yourself.

It's a matter of establishing some collective ownership and a stake in
the results, and shipping a prototype and decision summaries doesn't
do that.

I voted to endorse, and I'm looking forward to useful results and an
openly run project, but I'm not at all surprised to hear some
skepticism.

-- 
James Carlson, Solaris Networking              <james.d.carlson at sun.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

Reply via email to