Alan Burlison writes: > James Carlson wrote: > > Having the box open and simplifying what you can is great. I think > > the new model, though, should be informed to some extent by the bits > > we know we have, rather than going through that mapping process once > > again. And thus only really having addressed the User Group problem > > and nothing else. > > A agree, I'm in favour of evolution rather than revolution. I do think > however we've done more than just deciding that we need User Groups, for > example separating voting from the other bits, removing the > Contributor/Core Contributor distinction and so forth.
Yes, I saw that, but in terms of the force-fit problem, the User Groups are the only fix I see. We also know that consolidations, architecture, and distributors are in the cold and are not well represented by the model. (Oddly, in all the upheaval, we still have "communities," which few seem to understand -- they were, to my eye, apparently seeded in some part by Sun's internal management structure [every director needs his own community], but some are active, some are in the weeds, and a few are tombstones. In any event, they seem to be the least historical of the major parts.) We can deal with the force-fit problem now -- while the fingerpaints are wet -- or we can try to patch it on top again later. > All that is > missing is a decision that what we have is sufficient and that I can get > on and implement it. I agree. But backing up just one step: we need to have a clear set of goals (e.g., are consolidations relevant?) before we can judge whether we're meeting them reasonably. -- James Carlson, Solaris Networking <james.d.carlson at sun.com> Sun Microsystems / 35 Network Drive 71.232W Vox +1 781 442 2084 MS UBUR02-212 / Burlington MA 01803-2757 42.496N Fax +1 781 442 1677
