A request to the OGB:
I believe this proposal is quite broad in scope and of direct
relevance to the entire OS.o community. Hence I request the OGB to
ensure that the core-contributors of the existing CGs (and/or
contributors) have had an opportunity to respond to the proposal.
I am not sure if all the core-contributors actively go through all
proposals sent to the OGB list.
My comments below:
On Jan 21, 2008 2:23 AM, Shawn Walker <swalker at opensolaris.org> wrote:
>
> Based on comments received so far, I have completed a new version of
> this proposal. That nature of the proposal has not changed, although
> it should be much clearer what is being proposed now.
>
> Summary
> ==========
> The OpenSolaris community needs a new Community Group to facilitate
> collaboration, design, and development of OpenSolaris-based
> distributions. Because of new tools that are already available to the
> community, but are rapidly reaching maturity, it is probable that
> there will be a large number of community-based distributions being
> created soon. In addition, the current set of Community Groups
> available to sponsor projects are not properly scoped or otherwise
> suitable for the nature and goals of distribution projects. As such,
> the creation of a new Community Group is needed.
>
> Scope
> ==========
> The proposed Distribution Community Group shall be the group to which
> the OGB delegates responsibility for encouraging the sustained growth
> and success of OpenSolaris-based distribution projects.
In principle this looks fine. This would essentially make this a CG
that can make far reaching decisions.
Given the current structuring of OS.o and the past precedences, I see
a problem here.
During the Indiana controversy, some of the advocacy group members
claimed exclusive "product management" right & expertise. Creation of
a Distro Community essentially puts this in black & white form under a
different CG head.
>
> The Distribution Community Group should be the central place for
> discussions and decisions regarding OpenSolaris-based distributions
> and their impact upon the OpenSolaris community. To support this, it
> is proposed that the OGB will allow the group to act as the initial
> arbiter in dispute resolution amongst distributions and related
> projects.
>
[snip]
>
> The Distribution Community Group will also work to establish unified
> processes and resources to assist distribution projects in
> contributing to the sustained growth and success of our community.[snip]
>
An observation here: The above scope along with this CG(projects
under) maintaining their own ON tree(as mentioned below), defining the
processes, developing tools, etc makes this CG a meta-CG bringing into
its ambit many of the existing CGs (if not on paper definitely in the
nature of influence).
> Initial Projects
> ==========
> The following are a series of projects that the Community Group should
> begin once it is formed.
>
> With the acceptance of Project Indiana, and the acceptance of the
> initial set of core contributors, Project Indiana should be reassigned
> to the new Community Group or seek re-sponsorship.
>
> As part of encouraging the sustained growth and success of
> community-based distributions, it is highly desirable that a new
> project oriented towards ON Community Group developers be created.
> This new project would maintain a branch of the main ON tree that
> integrates patches from community developers on a rapid basis as they
> are approved for inclusion. It will build the resulting source tree on
> frequent basis (to be determined, with the initial goal being weekly).
> This will allow community developers to quickly see and test the
> results of their contributions while encouraging innovation and
> providing an easy method for developers to obtain feedback from other
> community members.
>
There is no justification for maintaining a separate branch of the ON
tree. The backbone of the OS.o is the ON consolidation, forking it
essentially breaks the very idea of *unified processes* that this
proposal talks about.
>
> Rationale
> ==========
> There are many reasons a Distribution Community Group is needed. One
> of them is that past events have shown that none of the existing
> community groups are wholly suitable for the community-wide impact
> that distributions can have within the OpenSolaris community.
> In addition, none of the existing Community Groups are properly scoped
> for the kind of decisions that need to made to by a knowledgeable,
> focused group of individuals whose primary interest relates to the
> production of distributions.
>
The nature of decisions the CG intends to take are of direct relevance
to all the CGs under OS.o
With the current structuring of the CGs & projects, this particular CG
should at best facilitate decision making by taking inputs from
various other CGs.
It should do initial investigations on policy-level proposals related
distros and provide recommendations to the OGB instead of seeking
delegation of power. If the CG seeks delegation of power, then the CG
should have a appropriate representation as its core-contributors.
> Additionally, the Distribution Community Group will help establish a
> clear chain of responsibility by ensuring that distribution projects
> are directly responsible to a particular Community Group. This allows
> a first line of arbitration, and active guidance that distribution
> projects need.
>
A distro is a combination of host of technologies and methodologies. A
CG defining unified rules/processes, attempting to enforce them, and
providing guidance when there is no such expressed need is against the
ethos of open source.
If the DC & IPS technologies are compelling enough as they are turning
out to be, alternative tools will not materialize or will die. Success
is to be through compelling technologies not via diktats of the people
who are not directly working on *that distro*.
> Finally, the tools necessary to build a distribution are quickly
> reaching maturity, and the Community Group will encourage individuals
> creating or maintaining distributions to participate directly in the
> OpenSolaris community to avoid some of the past problems that have
> arisen.
>
Encouraging people to participate at OS.o is good.
But incorrect reason is attributed to the past problems.
Tools that are used to build Indiana are reaching maturity. There are
no attempts to create a distro at OS.o without using these tools. They
are no reasons to believe existing distros outside OS.o will join OS.o
if this CG materializes in its current form.
Infact I believe the contrary is true, but this needs to be verified
with the distro leaders themselves.
> Proposal
> ==========
> The core of this proposal is to:
>
> * Create a Distribution Community Group
> * That existing distribution projects be encouraged to seek
> re-sponsorship or be reassigned to to this new community
> * That the following individuals be considered for the initial set
> of core contributors with their acceptance:
> o Shawn Walker (id: swalker) (proposed facilitator)
> o Ken Mays (id: kmays)
> o Eric Boutilier (id: ericb)
> o Danek Duvall (id: dduvall)
> o Dennis Clarke (id: dclarke)
> o David Comay (id: comay)
> o Sara Dornsife (id: sarad)
> o Glynn Foster (id: gman)
> o Moinak Ghosh (id: moinakg)
> o Stephen Hahn (id: sch)
> o Dave Miner (id: dminer)
> o Ian Murdock (id: imurdock)
> o John Plocher (id: plocher)
> o Joerg Schilling (id: joerg)
> o Bart Smaalders (id: barts)
>
>
The role of a core contributor in this CG does not enhance the ability
to contribute but does provide considerable rights. While all the
members listed above have contributed to OS.o in different ways, for
the purpose of this CG, the initial core contributors are to be
considered based on *established record* of existing contributions
towards distro related technologies instead of a future promise of
participation/contributions. Additional members can always be co-opted
by the initial set of core contributors. I believe the below subset
from the above list is recognizable:
o Bart Smaalders
o Dave Miner
o David Comay
o Glynn Foster
o Joerg Schilling
o Moinak Ghosh
o Stephen Hahn
Representations from Nexenta & MartuX is missing. Are they required ?
Why or why not?
Additional representations might be required from other CGs based on
the relevance for any OpenSolaris distro - for ex from "Desktop CG",
"Architecture Process and Tools", etc.
This list of members might not be representative enough for the wide
scope the CG has as per the proposal.
best regards
Shiv
