On Thu, Jul 19, 2007 at 04:49:29PM -0700, Ashley Saulsbury wrote: > Are you considering a heirarchical community structure ? Say > virtualization, under which sub communities for Zones, BrandZ, xVM and > LDoms are present ? Or just one giant community for everything?
There is no such thing as a community subgroup, though it's conceivable that a bureaucratically innovative community group could find a way to structure itself that way without falling afoul of the constitution. > The problem with the all encompassing approach (enticing as it may seem) > is that these are all largely orthogonal technologies. > > By way of analogy would you put ZFS, UFS and QFS communities in the same > bucket ? (include also support for veritas ?). This is essentially what my followup question was getting at - not whether technologies are orthogonal (which these actually aren't - they're not identical but neither are they completely unrelated, especially when one starts to think about managing them) but whether they reflect compatible views of the universe and are governed by people willing to work together. And, I suppose, whether that cooperation would actually add value. To answer your question, I think it would probably be fine to put UFS, QFS, and VxFS together with other similar technologies in a Traditional Filesystems CG. ZFS doesn't fit; it's a different and incompatible way of looking at the problem space. It seems unlikely to me that the value added by that unification would exceed the value lost to increased intragroup conflict. But all this is fairly academic. This discussion needs to involve the people who participated in the last go-round, specifically the core contributors of the extant virtualisation-related CGs. -- Keith M Wesolowski "Sir, we're surrounded!" FishWorks "Excellent; we can attack in any direction!"
