Stephen Hahn wrote: > You keep using the term "forum". You can't mean a mailing list and > web pages, because projects have those facilities as well. I mean forum in a "place to bring folks who aren't working together (and in the open) together" sense. Code and repositories could be one organizing principle. Shared technical interests (e.g. SIGs) could be another. In our case, I could see how a PM community would be a place where higher level architectural issues could be worked...and the individual projects would work towards implementing that larger architecture. Within Sun, a power management forum already exists to bring together and facilitate alignment between PM project teams across the company. Such a forum on OS.o could bring about similar goodness between those same participants, and the broader community.
> I can only > assume you are really hoping for "exclusive or sole forum". Of > course, a CG doesn't get you exclusivity--by design, since we've > already seen that at times, due to lack of interest, CGs die out, and > their goals get partially assumed by individuals in other CGs. > I'm not really sure what you mean here. I think it's appropriate that the community have a purpose (or charter) and some goals, and those would be defined by the contributers making up the community, which are those doing the work. I don't think Randy's proposal means to create an exclusive club...quite the opposite. The purpose is to facilitate bringing various disparate efforts out in the open, facilitate collaboration and hopefully some alignment. As the community grows I fully expect that the goals would evolve too. > I think that, if exclusivity or highlighting is what you're after, > then we should wait for the Board to come up with some kind of special > interest group tag for projects or mail aliases. I'm a strong -1 on > yet another source of Core Contributor grants for work that will end > up in ON. I'm also a -1 on an Emancipation CG for these reasons (as > well as not understanding how to evaluate contributions to > Emancipation work that don't ever end up in a mainline source tree or > a distro) > I get the sense that in discussing this proposal, you are really talking about things outside the scope of this proposal. I understand that there is an evolving discussion around community simplification, and that you are considering this proposal in the context of that evolving discussion, which is fine, but I don't think Randy or myself are after anything nefarious here. :) -Eric
