Stephen Hahn wrote:
> (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.)
Logistically, how do you see this work? (I have my own
thoughts, put forth below)
For context:
Presume we have a bunch of existing PM-related projects,
and each has their own mailing lists
The ON CG has its own mailing list(s), as does Storage,
Clusters and Laptop...
There is no functional overlap between any of these
aliases, though some individuals may be subscribed to
multiple aliases.
Each of the Projects could certainly create more aliases,
but who would be subscribed to them? Where would you hold
a discussion about a topic that involved all these players?
As things sit today, the only "solution" is for everyone to
subscribe to everyone else's aliases - which isn't happening.
When Randy and I talked about this CG proposal, I suggested
that it made more sense for it to be a SIG, but that we (OGB,
OS.o, webapp, ...) hadn't yet invented SIGs.... (bummer :-)
In my mind, a SIG is more than simply a mailing list - it is
a sub/umbrella community that shares an interest in a particular
area, but doesn't have the attribute that it (as an entity) is
actually "doing" that thing.
Thus, a PM SIG would be a place for everyone who is interested
in Power Management to congregate, discuss and plan, even if
the various individuals were actually doing their work in the
ON, Appliance, Storage, Clusters and Laptop CGs. As a SIG, it
would have a presence on OS.o so it could publish roadmaps,
best practices, whitepapers, and whatever else it needed to
do to make Power Management work well across all the OS.o
efforts.
-John
