On May 14, 2008, at 17:22, Stephen Hahn wrote: > * Randy Fishel <randy.fishel at sun.com> [2008-05-14 21:06]: >> On Wed, 14 May 2008, Alan Coopersmith wrote: >>> Randy Fishel wrote: >>>> I would like to propose starting a Power Management Community. >>>> The intention is to coalesce fragmented power management >>>> discussion and work into a single community. >>>> >>>> The proposal can be found here: >>>> >>>> http://www.genunix.org/wiki/index.php/Power_Management_Community_Group_Proposal_2008 >>> >>> The OGB discussed this Monday, and had 3 questions before approving: >>> >>> 1) Why a community instead of a project? >> >> Primarily, because it would never be a single project. There is a >> larger desire to coordinate power management work, instead of having >> bits (possibly conflicting bits) scattered all over the place. And >> it >> is also difficult for developers/users to know where they should go >> to >> address their specific problems or needs. The community could well >> be >> considered an umbrella, or meta-project, as one goal is the creation >> of projects to solve specific needs, but that grouping doesn't exist >> (yet). > > One of the problems I see with this proposal (and the Emancipation CG > proposal, for that matter) is that the larger scale tradeoff > discussions aren't going to happen in the proposed CG, but in the CGs > that hold the responsibilities for the main source tree for each > proposed change. That is, I'm sure that Power Management > participants > might all agree that a particular change is great for Power > Management, but that a person more interested in performance or > availability might disagree. That discussion happens within ON. > > (A project can have multiple repositories and multiple mailing lists, > so I'm not sure why one would need a meta-project or a CG to > coordinate > multiple efforts.) > > My question for a new CG proposal is always going to be "why does > this > group of people need distinct representation?" (And it would be nice > to apply this question with "still need" to some of the inactive CGs > as well.) I guess I don't see the need here: Desktop, Laptop, > Appliance, and ON all seem to be CGs providing overlapping > representation for this technical area.
If we had such a thing this would form a fine Special Interest Group. I'm proposing that we stop using the generic term "community group" on its own and start a new approach where we have several kinds of "community group" - SIGs, Projects, consolidations/distros and user groups. I have a rather verbose proposal ready to add to Bugzilla to start the resolution process, I just need to see if I can make it a bit more concise first. S.
