Keith, Keith M Wesolowski wrote: > On Mon, Jun 04, 2007 at 11:06:07AM -0500, Eric Boutilier wrote: > >> Cool, this is the first new CG under the new process... Or maybe it's a tie >> with the Advocacy Community. Anyway, I think the next step is for the >> website admin/ops team (copied) to work with the leaders of the HA Cluster >> Community to get the new webpage, etc. set up. > > I guess it's time for me to be "obstructionist" again. Sigh. The > Constitution very clearly lays out this process, and it does not end > when the nominating Members agree that yes, they are in fact making > this nomination. Therefore, the next step is *not* in fact to go off > and set up web pages. It's exactly what I described in my attempt to > help the nominating Members be clearly and concisely communicating the > process and the next steps: a public comment period of not less than > 14 days, followed by an OGB vote on whether to instantiate the > proposed Group. If the OGB approves, then it will possible to > allocate hosting resources to the new Group. Sec. 7.4 spells it out > very explicitly.
No problem. We don't mind following the rules. Since you've raised some potential issues below, I'll go ahead and attempt to address some of them now. However, don't take my answers as the end of discussion. Others should feel free to raise similar issues or discuss these in more depth. > > What would be helpful are comments as to whether people support this > Community Group's formation and believe it would be a viable > contributor to OpenSolaris. Except for the nominating Members, "+1" > is not really helpful - what do people actually think about this? Is > it troubling to anyone that they're proposing to form a Community > Group consisting entirely of Sun employees paid to work on and promote > a product that is neither open source as of this writing nor a part of > OpenSolaris proper? It's correct that Solaris Cluster is not yet opensource or part of OpenSolaris. But the point is that we want to make the product opensource and part of OpenSolaris. My understanding is that forming a community is the way to do that. And we have no intention of limiting the community to only Sun employees, as I mentioned in my answer to Stephen's questions. Do people believe the proposal reflects an > appropriate granularity of charter? What useful projects do people > envision this Group sponsoring in the future? Is it realistic to > expect that people not employed by Sun will be able to make important > contributions in this area? Is there reason to think any would want > to? Would this Community Group be expected to sponsor work in > OpenSolaris of general use for all HA clustering software, or only > SunCluster? We would like to sponsor work of general HA interest, not just related to Sun Cluster. If a technical conflict arises between the needs of > SunCluster and the needs of other HA clustering software, how would > this Group resolve that conflict? I would hope that a technical issue could be resolved on its technical merits without involving favoritism to particular products or companies. However, I realize that everyone participating in an open-source community has their biases based on who they work for, what their goals are, what code they've touched and contributed, etc. So, being totally honest, we'll try to be balanced, but there may be some biases creeping in. However, note that we will make significant efforts to involve folks from outside Sun as soon as possible. We certainly don't intend to be insular. Thanks, Nick > > I'm sure there are plenty of other questions people would like > answered which I haven't even thought of. This opportunity for public > comment and questions should not be taken lightly; I know I'll be > watching closely to see what other Members think of this proposal. >
