Mike Gerdts wrote:
> On Jan 27, 2008 4:04 PM, Glynn Foster <Glynn.Foster at sun.com> wrote:
>
>> I'm actually not sure I agree, and maybe my opinion touches on what Peter has
>> already expressed that the Community Group structure has failed. I'd actually
>> like to see *less* of a bond between Projects and Community Groups. There
>> should
>> be an extremely low barrier to entry for project creation - rather than
>> having
>> to even propose a project, any contributor should be able to JFDI. The
>> project
>> will succeed depending on the number of people that gather around it and
>> their
>> determination to complete it.
>>
>
> This seems to be similar to the approach of sourceforge and similar
> sites. At such a time as a hare brain idea turns into something worth
> integrating into the main source tree, this may be the time that a
> community adopts the project.
>
> I'm not so sure that a project like Indiana would have gained much
> support (even enough for a project to start up) if it hadn't been a
> priority set by Sun execs. To a certain extent Belinix seems to be
> the first run at Indiana in that it merges the strengths of Solaris
> and the userland found on various Linux distros. As far as I can
> tell, Belenix uses no opensolaris.org infrastructure. I can't help
> but think there is a reason.
>
> I would really like to see that any contributor (or participant with a
> core contributor sponsor?) can get the resources needed to host
> "efforts" of various types. These efforts may need a source
> repository, virtual web host (including non-static pages), mailing
> lists, build/test farm access, wikis, blogs, etc. The one requirement
> would be that the content would need to relate to OpenSolaris.
> Running an ecommerce site (that doesn't benefit opensolaris) or
> serving up family photo albums would not be allowed.
>
Agree. While I've not read all the messages (as Alan pointed out, there
are too many) on this thread, I have been thinking and it isn't clear to
me at all that "governance" should be used for Projects. I really think
Projects should be free to come and go... and a sponsoring community
shouldn't be required. (Although, I do believe that projects that want
to *integrate* into some larger repo, say ON, should probably required
to follow the rules set by that repo/consolidation.)
Affiliation with CGs should be an optional thing (although projects that
want to be popular should try to talk CGs into linking to their
resources, or affiliating with them, or whatever.)
I like the sourceforge model for projects -- any project with a suitable
license can be set up (we might have slightly more strict requirements
by adding a requirement that the project has to relate to OpenSolaris),
with its own project resources (web page, SCM, even file transfer areas).
So, I vote for less governance for projects, not more.
-- Garrett
