* Eric Saxe <Eric.Saxe at Sun.COM> [2008-05-15 20:11]: > 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. It's probably my shortcomings, but I see no need for the participants of that forum to require a vote in community-wide decision making, nor do I see how a well advertised project fails to meet those needs.
> > 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. That's a project. See below. > > 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. :) Not really. A CG asks, ultimately, for (a) the right to issue voting rights for its identified core contributors and (b) the right to have disputes with another CG heard by the Board. I don't see any special need for this effort to have those things; none of the arguments in the initial proposal have done so either. I would prefer to see the Board make progress here, but that doesn't mean that any proposal should necessarily be approved in the interim. - Stephen -- sch at sun.com http://blogs.sun.com/sch/
