On Jan 27, 2008 4:44 PM, Keith M Wesolowski <keith.wesolowski at sun.com> wrote: > I will say that creating a Distributions CG is a definite step in the > wrong direction. At best, it's another SIG: possibly of some value to > discuss some of the meta-issues that others have raised about > distributions in general, but not something that would take us any > closer to a use of CGs that is actually consistent with their > definition. Worse, it would seem to actively preclude representing > individual distributions as CGs - the one possible use for which they > seem a good fit. In one small way, then - denying Mr. Walker's > request - the OGB may hope to use its powers to at least preserve the > possibility of something that makes sense.
If it is, then by all means, I hope that the OGB has a constructive idea that replaces it and votes to reject the proposal. We have been told that a CG should be scoped to that which it produces, thus none of the existing CGs are appropriate for sponsoring a distribution project. With this in mind, is the proposed solution then to have a CG for each distribution project? If so, that seems to conflict with the current definitions of CGs and projects and be somewhat redundant. If each distribution project were a CG, then there would have to be a project under that CG simply to represent the CG, so that resources, etc. (repository) can be allocated; which seems silly to me. It also eliminate the possibility, in my mind, of having a more cohesive foundation for multiple distribution projects. Ultimately, the purpose of my proposal is to see that there is some way to ensure that there is a place for developers to collaborate on distribution projects. Whatever form that exists in is irrelevant to me; I'm just a developer that would like to get things done and I have no "place" to do that now. Cheers, -- 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
