On Jan 24, 2008 3:19 AM, Brian Gupta <brian.gupta at gmail.com> wrote: > You have a lot of big thoughts. Right now distros are on my mind. (And > the OGB/Sun discussions regarding naming.) > > I am directly responding to your comments in bullet three. > > > On Jan 24, 2008 2:19 AM, Ben Rockwood <benr at cuddletech.com> wrote: > > I think we all are seeing some serious flaws in the existing > > organization based on a variety of examples in the last year. I have > > plans to introduce a proposal in the next few weeks, as I've not fully > > baked my proposed structure and associated constitutional amendments, > > but I'll start throwing out some ideas. > > > > 1) The current Constitution has within it a major flaw, in that it does > > not define Projects. It refers to them, but never defines them. > > > > 2) Existing terminology is excessively confusing and has, to an arguable > > extent, painted us into corners. A "Community Group" sounds like a > > loose collation of related "things". A "Project" sounds like a place to > > do work, collaborate on details, and work in a targeted way. The > > Constitution puts organization in CG's, but not in projects... projects > > answer to and are "owned" by CG's. > > > > This is where things get sticky. Lets take two examples, one that works > > in this model and one that doesn't. > > > > First, lets take the Advocacy CG. This is the model CG thanks to the > > hard work of Jim G. You go to the CG main page and you are greeted with > > all the information you need to get started. There are several > > projects, all well segmented, its a thing of beauty. This works, I > > believe, because the core contributors of the Advocacy CG have a handle > > and grasp on all of the projects benieth it, even if they aren't > > involved directly, and people contributing projects trust and look to > > the leadership of the CG Core Contributors. Sara D. or Jim G. or Teresa > > G. (on and on) can speak to any of the Projects under the CG with > > respect and trust, and then be back on their way. > > > > On the other side, lets consider the LDOM's CG proposal. This was met > > with the suggestion of instead collapsing xVM/Xen and Zones CG's into a > > larger Virtualization CG as projects, and then bringing LDOM's along > > side. This didn't work (short version) because while LDOM's, Zones, > > and xVM are all Virtualization efforts, they really are completely > > distinct. Could Core Contribs of a Virtualization CG make judgements > > that would be respected, trusted, and useful to the underlying > > Projects? Not to mention that these are large efforts which themselves > > may require projects. For these reasons and more, it proved that in our > > Constitutional model "Virtualization" isn't a Community Group; LDOM's is. > > > > 3) Now, lets consider the Distribution CG proposal (that will go to vote > > regardless of any discussion, btw). Shawn Walker is absolutely correct > > that there needs to be some way to bring distributions together in an > > organized way within the OpenSolaris community framework. Linux distros > > are a great example, they are all over the place and independant, > > wouldn't it be nice if all the OpenSolaris distros had a home (if they > > choose to participate of course)? > > This would be acceptable if the definition of this CG wasn't: "Sun is > making a distro currently called Indiana. The Belenix derived > technologies used to create this distro are now the standard for > making any 'OpenSolaris distro'. If you wish to make an alternative > distro based on alternative distro-constructors, or alternative > packaging systems, you should go buzz off. If however on the other > hand, you are going to use IPS and distro-constructor, come join, you > are welcome."
Except that isn't the definition of the proposed CG; it seems you have misunderstood the proposal and have taken creative license with its contents. You will note that it really only asks for four specific things: 1) Create a Distribution Community Group 2) That existing distribution projects be encouraged to seek re-sponsorship or be reassigned to to this new community 3) That certain individuals be considered for the initial set of core contributors 4) That the Community Group be setup to manage and host distribution projects and encourage a healthy relationship with the greater OpenSolaris Community. Nowhere does it stipulate that those distributions use IPS, the distribution constructor, or anything else. Nowhere does it state that distribution projects won't be able to join if they choose not to use those tools and processes. It does *encourage* distributions to seek unity among themselves through tools and processes. Sponsorship of projects will be determined by the core contributors, not by this proposal. > I disagree with some prominent members of the community who feel that > "Linux's biggest weakness is it's lack of standards". Personally I > feel that Linux's biggest strength is it's diversity. If you have a > technical problem to solve, you can find a Linux distro to solve it. > If you are looking to make a cell phone, you have: Open Mocha, Android > and JavaFX. If you are looking for an embedded router you have > OpenWRT, Linux router project, DD_WRT, Debian, and others. If you are > looking for a laptop you have Ubuntu, Fedora, Mandriva, and OpenSuSE. > You get the idea, there are a lot of choices. Choice is a beautiful > thing. Diversitity is a strength, not a bug. That's a personal view. Many users, ISVs, and others who are all drowning in a sea of GNU/Linux incompatibility tend to disagree. > It seems we are trying to eradicate the possibility of diversity. > (Apparently supported by Sun executive management, but I could be > wrong). On the contrary; at the core of the Distribution CG proposal is an encouragement of innovation. > I believe that distros like Nexenta, Schillix and MartUX should be > *actively* encouraged to join the community, not pushed away. So we > are at where we are at. About to abandon out founding principles. My proposal made it very clear that all distribution projects would be *encouraged* to join, so this also is not correct. > Keith touched upon it. There are now two communities forming. We are > forced to embrace this. We shouldn't have been put in this position, > but here we are. Sun has decided to take back OpenSolaris the > trademark and make it the name of an OS/distro. There is no point in > fighting it, as they are the trademark holders. (I am assuming that > the results of the OGB negotiation with Sun, on behalf of the > community, yielded a certain result, based on the OGB's public > comments.) That has nothing to do with the proposed CG. What Sun chooses to do with trademarks or branding guidelines is up to Sun; not this proposed Community Group. Please read the proposal for the CG again: http://binarycrusader.blogspot.com/2008/01/motion-to-board-proposed-community.html -- Shawn Walker, Software and Systems Analyst http://binarycrusader.blogspot.com/ "To err is human -- and to blame it on a computer is even more so." - Robert Orben
