....... while this is a useful conversation, I hate to thread-jack* my
thread back; but do people have any other comments for my
Community/Project reorganisation proposal?
Two comments I've had in private were:
- Split System Administration & Management into two communities:
System Administration
RAS
- Split Performance & Observability back into its original two
communities:
Performance
Observability
I didn't have a strong justification for the former; it just felt like
there would be some overlap there. I felt there to be strong overlap
for the latter in projects such as DTrace, or NUMA. I'm open to hearing
arguments for splitting it though.
If people on ogb-discuss feel my proposal is adequate, I'd like to
notify the affected projects/communities and get feedback from them as
the next step.
cheers,
steve
* I don't believe it's officially thread-jacking for me to take my own
thread back ;-)
On Fri, Apr 20, 2007 at 07:44:30PM +0100, Simon Phipps wrote:
>
> On Apr 20, 2007, at 19:25, Eric Saxe wrote:
>
> >Thanks for cc'ing me...
> >I guess my project proposal has become somewhat of a case study? :)
>
> Sorry that's happening but I think we're all learning a lot!
>
> >Stephen Lau wrote:
> >>>>>Proposed name: Project Tesla: Solaris Enhanced Power Management
> >>>>> Not O.K.
> >>>>> Suggest: "Tesla: Solaris Enhanced Power Management"
> >>>>> (similar to... several, e.g. Reno and Tamarack)
> >>>>>
> >>>>Not OK - Decorative.
> >>>>
> >>>Ok by policy, not ok for hosting on Sun's resources. That is, if
> >>>you
> >>>speak for Sun here.
> >>>
> >>Tesla to me implies the physicist, not a company.
> >
> >Again, I think i'm missing context. Is there a trademark issue? If
> >so, is there a process that proposers
> >of projects are supposed to (or should) go through to ensure a
> >project's name is "good"?
>
> The problem is that to find out if there /is/ a trademark issue costs
> a non-trivial sum of money that we don't have. We should assume there
> might be a trademark issue whenever we use a decorative name. That's
> why it's better for us to use descriptive names unless there is an
> exceptional circumstance and there is a sponsor involved who can pay
> for legal review. Are both of these the case here?
>
> >>>>* Including "Solaris" or "OpenSolaris" in the name is redundant
> >>>>since
> >>>Agreed.
> >>>
> >>
> >>Ditto.
> >>
> >Maybe in the context of opensolaris.org it's redundant. But where
> >the project name is raised in a broader context
> >(like "an open source project"), expressing that the work is
> >destined for OpenSolaris seems useful.
>
> Unfortunately, since Sun in its wisdom set this community up with a
> trademark in its name, Sun will have to abide by US trademark law and
> enforce licensing and minimum quality standards over that trademark.
> Thus, the example you describe is exactly the sort of circumstance in
> which it's better not to use the word "OpenSolaris".
>
> S.
>
> _______________________________________________
> ogb-discuss mailing list
> ogb-discuss at opensolaris.org
> http://opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/ogb-discuss
--
stephen lau // stevel at sun.com | 650.786.0845 | http://whacked.net
opensolaris // solaris kernel development
