Shawn Walker wrote:
> 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.
So this community group would be about building common technology and
not about managing the individual distributions? That doesn't seem
to match with this:
> Distributions
> that have previously been sponsored by another Community Group may
> remain with that group. However, it is hoped that all such projects
> will approach the contributors of this new community to seek
> reassignment (sponsorship), or that if necessary, they be reassigned.
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?
With the planned distro constructor technology, I could see a community
covering a family of related distros, which all release on the same
schedule, but just package a different subset of the packages from the
same repository - for instance an Indiana community group that managed
[names made up on the spot purely for example purposes] "OpenSolaris.org:
The Reference Distro", "OpenSolaris.edu: The Academic Distro", and
"OpenSolaris.EU: The KDE Distro", makes sense - but folding in Schillix
or Nexenta to that group does not unless they plan to just become variants
of Indiana ("OpenSolaris.GNU: The Nexenta Distro"?).
--
-Alan Coopersmith- alan.coopersmith at sun.com
Sun Microsystems, Inc. - X Window System Engineering
