Yikes! This was meant to be seen earlier, and because Brian sent it from a non-subscribed email box (thus (requiring moderator's approval) AND me being out of town, I did not get a chance to approve this note to the list until returning last night....
VERY SORRY Brian. Isaac On Feb 7, 2008, at 6:04 AM, Brian Gupta <brian.gupta at gmail.com> wrote: > Community, > > First let me apologize. I have been loath to write to a captive > community. Please address all responses to me or to > ogb-discuss at opensolaris.org rather than risking further traffic to a > widely distributed list. (I only address the community because I feel > that it is a topic of utmost importance to our identity as an open > community.) > > Shawn Walker has a proposal before the OGB that will be voted on later > today. His proposal basically is asking to create a distro building > community. Supposedly it is agnostic, but in reality it seems to be a > precursor to an official "Indiana Project == OpenSolaris Binary > distro" move by our benevolent sponsors. > > Many of us signed on to be developers and advocates to something quite > different than what the leaders of the "Disto CG" believe. The distro > CG core sponsors want to make an Official OpenSolaris distro, and set > preconditions on what it means to be an OpenSolaris Disto. (As a > member of the real distro building community I resent the arrogance of > this). In particular the Indiana team has expressed that only binaries > built by the Indiana team can be used to make an "OpenSolaris distro". > This I disagree with, as anyone should be able to take the OpenSolaris > source code and make an "OpenSolaris distro". (I believe that > diversity is going to be our future strength.) > > I also feel that Keith's denigration of the OpenSolaris code base to a > name such as Cosnix is misguided. Our code base is called OpenSolaris. > "OpenSolaris" refers to our code base and our community. (And nothing > else). (Frankly, I don't know what is happening in the secret > negotiations between the OGB and Sun regarding the OpenSolaris > trademark, but my heart fears for the worst. IE: Sun no longer feels > it is in their business interests to have OpenSolaris simply refer to > a code base, but rather a brand for a Sun product, which we now know > as Project Indiana.) > > This issue may seem to be a simple thing but it is really a proxy for > our identity. Is OpenSolaris.org a diverse community, or do we want to > create a distro and build a singular community around it? (BTW - I > have strong technical disagreements with the approach the Indiana team > has approached packaging, which I hope explains my trespassing of your > inbox). > > Please subscribe to ogb-discuss at opensolaris.org and make your opinions > known regarding both this proposal and whether the Indiana team will > determine our fate. This is important on both fronts, as the OGB needs > to know how to represent the community. To subscribe please just send > an email to ogb-discuss-subscribe at opensolaris.com and follow the > instructions in the email response. Please make your opinions known > even if you disagree with me, as if left unresolved this will continue > to be a contentious issue for the community. (Remember make your > opinions known on ogb-discuss. They need to know how to represent us.) > > Although writing to ogb-discuss at opensolaris.org prior to the meeting > today, is probably the best way to make your voice heard, you can also > try calling in on the following numbers at 12 PST (3PM EST): > > Participant Passcode: 6266208 > > Country Toll Numbers Freephone/ > Toll Free > === > === > === > ===================================================================== > CANADA 866-675-9751 > NETHERLANDS 31-20-717-6836 > 0800-343-4332 > NEW ZEALAND 64-9-970-4608 > 0800-441-636 > USA 1-210-795-0500 > 1-877-807-6997 > > Thank you, > Brian Gupta > Solaris Advocate > OpenSolaris.org Member > > On Jan 22, 2008 5:38 PM, Keith M Wesolowski > <Keith.Wesolowski at sun.com> wrote: >> On Tue, Jan 22, 2008 at 11:46:38AM -0500, James Carlson wrote: >> >>>> One community group in charge of all distributions seems too broad. >>>> For making the decisions about the distro itself, like each >>>> distro's >>>> release plans, it would seem a separate community group is >>>> necessary >>>> - for example, why would Ian have a vote on Schillix release >>>> plans or >>>> Joerg a vote on Indiana release plans? >>> >>> Actually, I think we'll need to get to that point, at least in some >>> cases. >>> >>> It seems impractical to me to say that the release binding and >>> schedule in use for something as big as ON is just "whatever." It >>> needs to be something that the consumers of ON (that is, the >>> distributors) agree on. If they can't all agree on one setting, >>> then >>> they'll need to fork ON into separate streams to contain various >>> kinds >>> of content, because there will inevitably be world-changing features >>> (such as SMF in the past) that can integrate into a release of one >>> binding, but not another. >> >> The way I've started thinking about this problem (and Mr. Walker's >> proposal) is to define some nomenclature. Whether you like my names >> is not really important; the fact is that these things exist, or >> could >> exist. Nothing here should be taken to be a grant of trademark >> rights >> or a statement of SMI's position, etc. >> >> Consix - The consolidations that exist currently, whether or not >> represented by a functioning Community Group. This is the >> freely-distributable portion of the content that makes up >> Solaris Express. Consix is not itself a product but is >> available for others to consume. >> >> Consix Community - The remains of the organisation originally formed >> as the OpenSolaris Community. This organisation is >> interested in the maintenance and development of Consix. >> >> OpenSolaris - A product of Sun Microsystems, Inc. (SMI). This >> product >> may or may not be based in whole or in part on Consix (see >> below). >> >> OpenSolaris Community - A community of users and distribution >> developers interested in OpenSolaris, the OpenSolaris >> Distribution Constructor, and the OpenSolaris workalikes >> created thereby. >> >> OpenSolaris Distribution Constructor - A product of SMI that enables >> third parties to create OpenSolaris workalikes in ways that >> allow them certain uses of SMI's trademarks. >> >> Note that the OpenSolaris Community and the Consix Community could in >> theory be parts of the same organisation; this isn't meant to suggest >> a particular political structure but rather a description of roles. >> >> The first question we need to answer is whether OpenSolaris consumes >> Consix. There are (at least) two possible models here. In one model >> - let us call it Alpha - Consix continues to exist as a separate >> collection of technology independently developed by the Consix >> Community, and the OpenSolaris Community takes snapshots or releases >> of Consix from time to time to develop into its distribution >> products. >> In the second model - Beta - Consix, if it exists at all, is entirely >> separate from OpenSolaris. Instead, the OpenSolaris Community forks >> from Consix at inception and never looks back. >> >> Model Alpha does indeed require some mechanism by which consumers of >> Consix - prominent but not exclusive among them the OpenSolaris >> Community - must agree on release bindings and schedules. This >> suggests a need for some arbitration or steering committee within the >> Consix Community. The $64,000 question, of course, is how it would >> be >> structured. >> >> Model Beta does not really have this same problem, because the >> OpenSolaris Community owns its entire source base. Workalike >> distributions are by design and intent subordinate to OpenSolaris >> itself, so the people responsible for managing OpenSolaris's >> repositories have all necessary authority to make decisions about >> releases and bindings. In this model, the Consix Community still >> needs some way to determine when to change utsname and what it means, >> but I think the Consix Community would have less difficulty with >> contributor-driven decision-making if the OpenSolaris folks can go >> their own way. >> >> It's not clear to me whether this proposal is intended to be a part >> of >> the Consix Community or the OpenSolaris Community (that is, which >> model is assumed). Nor is it clear that it fits well into either. >> >> The Consix Community has adopted a set of "Community Groups" that are >> in effect SIGs. They are narrow in scope and rarely encompass >> conflicting interests. Mr. Walker's proposal does not adhere to that >> model at all. There is no doubt that something has to replace the >> historic W-teams, but I do not see why a Distribution CG would do >> this >> more effectively than Mr. Coopersmith's previous proposals or some >> other mechanism. And I'm troubled by your suggestion that the right >> of suffrage derives primarily from consumption rather than >> production; >> that's not an idea found anywhere in the Consix Constitution. Still, >> as the OpenSolaris CG rather than the Distribution CG, a proposal not >> too unlike this one might fit neatly into the Consix Community: one >> may note that a single distribution appears to fit very neatly into >> the definition of a Community Group as described by the Consix >> Constitution and as envisioned by Mr. Fielding. >> >> If this is intended for the OpenSolaris Community, I think it needs >> to >> be considered in light of whatever kind of governance structure that >> community will want. If they intend to inherit as if by fork(2) the >> OpenSolaris Constitution, they need to think about how your plan fits >> in. Frankly, it seems to me that what you are proposing is not a new >> Consix CG but rather the OpenSolaris Community itself, under which >> there might exist political subdivisions for the various OpenSolaris >> workalikes but de facto absolute control of shared technical strategy >> lies with the trademark holder. >> >> Inherent in my thoughts here is the idea that Consix and OpenSolaris >> aren't really compatible ideologically. Maybe I'm wrong about that. >> >> -- >> Keith M Wesolowski "Sir, we're surrounded!" >> FishWorks "Excellent; we can attack in any >> direction!" >> _______________________________________________ >> >> ogb-discuss mailing list >> ogb-discuss at opensolaris.org >> http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/ogb-discuss >> > > > > -- > - Brian Gupta > > http://opensolaris.org/os/project/nycosug/ > _______________________________________________ > ug-nycosug mailing list > ug-nycosug at opensolaris.org > http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/ug-nycosug
