James Carlson wrote: >Darren Reed writes: > > >>James Carlson wrote: >> >> >> >>>... >>>I'm really quite disappointed that a project proposal like this would >>>meet with such opposition. >>> >>> >>> >>The opposition I have is the name it is being given, which isn't >>in line with what is being delivered/proposed. If one or the >>other can be changed, I'd be happy. >> >> > >The intent is to form a repository for all such documents. > >The intent is *NOT* just to deliver a Nemo/GLDv2 document and then >give up. > >Thus, the name is in line with what's being proposed. > >The original proposal made this clear. Whether other such documents >are ever actually written is currently unknown -- I have no way to >force anyone else to write any documents they don't want to write, and >I don't control their time. > >What I can do, though, is support the creation of a common repository >and project so that there's a place to do that work, should anyone >ever want to do it. That's what the proposal does. > >
Somehow I lost track of what the project is delivering and what I felt needed to be improvied and started a pointless argument. Being somewhat angry that this (the GLDv3 documentation) was all that we had to start with didn't help and probably fed what followed. I still can't believe it but anyhow, enough. What I was looking for (or hoping for) was an indication of what other documents were known to be desired for developers to make use of in the OpenSolaris community. It would seem that this is currently an empty set so there's no point belabouring the point. As we become aware of them or the need for them, they can be added to this project as additional tasks. I'm not convinced that the delivery of templates is orthogonal to the project "Network Documentation." So long as we write all of the documentation in house, it is, but if we plan to ever accept contributions from outside, it will be of benefit. It's probably a separate task in itself. That said, it isn't of immediate concern for this project. So far as requiring new projects to deliver documentation that becomes part of this project - that's a matter for the networking community as a whole to decide and outside the scope of this project. Any clues on how we go about making that sort of resolution? Anyway, if I read the proposal correctly, the delivery of the GLDv3 documenation doesn't mark the end of the project - which is the biggest worry I have/had and I think this is shared with others. As long as this is the start of a project that continues into the future, I'm happy to give it +1. Darren _______________________________________________ networking-discuss mailing list [email protected]
