On Wed, 8 Aug 2007, John Plocher wrote: > Mike Gerdts wrote: >> Having a place where there is a low barrier >> to entry (without distinction between project and community) would be >> a very good thing. > >> The focus should be on... >> >> - Get up and productive quickly >> - Gentle introduction to bureaucracy >> - Set time line to be absorbed by existing community, form a new >> community, or disband >> > > I really like your ordering - it "feels" much more friendly to > innovation and experimentation and growing: > > 1) Get the code out there > 2) Get a web/email presence working > 3) Start building a community around your work > 4) Figure out where you fit in OS.o and make a proposal >
+1 Following is my view on the issues stemming from the LDoms request... (This is mostly a reiteration of a previous post I made on this topic a while back, which itself was partly based on things I absorbed from a few other people's writings back then): Qualifying for OpenSolaris Community Group (CG) status depends largely on how established and vibrant the technology is that people are grouping around. - One important test for "established" (but not the only one) is this: Is the groups' artifact(s) shipping or shipping soon in a popular distro release (e.g. Solaris 10 or SX). - One important test for vibrancy (but not the only one) is magnitude and diversity of public discussion traffic. Therfore, for example, DTrace, Zones, Xen, and LDoms all qualify as OpenSolaris Community Groups. By contrast, things that are still small-medium; or not yet popular; or not yet established, should probably be Projects, but of course always possessing the potential to evolve into a technology that's established and vibrant, and therefore a Community Group in their own right. Eric
