On Jan 22, 2008 9:52 AM, Stephen Lau <stevel at opensolaris.org> wrote: > > There is a 14 day public comment period. You could ping the core > contributors list if you felt so inclined. My personal feeling is that > those that are interested in governance will be watching the governance > list. I've refrained from sending mail to the core contributors list > regarding this or other issues that I feel may not be of paramount > interest to *everybody* on the list (and I stress everybody, since there > is no way for people to opt out of that list). >
Seems fine. > 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. > > As much as I would like to relive the Indiana controversy, I don't > recall advocacy group members claiming exclusive product management > right and/or expertise. I stand corrected. The assertion that was made was not by the advocacy group member(s). Apologies for the same. > > I don't read Shawn's proposal as forking. It's not any more forking > than all the project gates that ON development teams keep all the time. > Up until build 78 or whenever Xen went in, there had been a "forked" Xen > gate for ages. Likewise for any other large development project. > > If the aim is to let rapidly developed changes "soak" for a while before > pushing upstream into the main ON gate, then I see that as a good thing, > and not any different than what current ON development teams already > practice. > This would be followed by any project under the proposed distro community as well. A project in itself for maintaining the ON tree is a bit confusing. Is it to provide the infrastructure of the ON repository for the new projects for the rapid development but without the overheads of the reviews till they become mature and are ready for "ARC review and mainline ON integration"? If this is indeed the case, may I request the wording of the proposal to bring out this meaning. > > > > 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. > > This sounds reasonable to me. Though I'm not certain the OGB is any > more qualified than the CG would be (and arguably less so). > I believe the OS.o community members to consider OGB as the policy making body for the community. With this understanding I meant that for policy decisions of broader impacts the buck stops at the OGB and not the distro CG. The OGB may subsequently choose to handle on its own or toss the ball to any other relevant CG/working-group on a case-by-case basis instead of a blanket delegation to a CG for all such decisions. If it should be the CG instead, then the scoping is to be done with care. regards Shiv
