Garrett D'Amore wrote:
Shawn Walker wrote:
Why do you need CCs to make decisions? Even then, you don't need your
own CG to have CCs if you align with the correct CG :)
We at least need a committee of folks who can make decisions about the
code that goes into the tree, because there will probably be conflicts
at some point. I think we should also be represented in the larger
community, and I don't think ON's interests will accurately reflect our
interest. I think a separate CG is called for here.
The proposed project's work overlaps with much of what the ON CG does.
CGs are currently a higher-level community governance structure, so I
don't believe that this sort of project fits its current definition.
I don't see this as a consolidation; and aren't consolidations
strictly a Sun thing anyway? I thought you were wanting to remove all
'Sun' aspects from this...
Its a consolidation in that its a repository of common code, yes. It
will also have its own gatekeeper(s) and rules for integration. I think
you should go back and read the original proposal again. (Or explain
why you don't think this is a consolidation.)
I'm aware of what the consolidation concept is, and yes, I read the
proposal. But, I'll defer to your understanding of what is and is not a
consolidation. I had (mistakenly?) believed consolidations to have a
different scope than this one, and since this somewhat overlaps with the
existing ON consolidation, I was confused on this point.
I don't understand what the concern is about autonomy. The
OpenSolaris constitution makes it very clear here that project
decisions remain the purvue of projects; not of the CG (as I
understand it).
This might have been misunderstanding on my part. I thought a Project
had to abide by whatever decisions were made by sponsoring CG.
As I said before, I don't believe this to be true. A CG could certainly
decide to remove their sponsorship, but I see that event as unlikely,
and even in that extremely unlikely event, sponsorship could always be
sought from another CG.
As such, I'll digress on this point. I personally would not approve a
CG for this project; I don't believe it meets the criteria under the
current constitution for the scope that is intended for a Community
Group. But it isn't my decision, so proceed however you will.
I still don't understand your objection. Do you believe that this
project does not warrant having its own representation at election
time? Why not? (Again, I think our interests and those of the larger
ON community might be divergent at times.)
No offence, but yes. Just because someone is a developer does not mean
that they should have a core contributor grant. But, let me explain first.
There are many people with core contributor grants right now that are
only interested in code, docs, user groups, etc. and not in community
governance.
Adding core contributors to the current opensolaris.org governance
structure that have no interest in community governance is what has
caused so many problems whenever we have had elections, etc.
This is why the OGB has been working so hard to separate governance from
control of projects, etc. Since, currently, CC grants also imply a
certain level of recognition, they have often been granted for
recognition rather than for any real interest in community governance.
I am not in any way implying that the current considered members will
not be interested in community governance, I just wanted you to
understand why I believe the bar for a CC/CG is higher than "contributing".
It isn't just about authorship; it also has to do with patent rights,
contributions from those under an employment agreement, etc. from my
rough, non-legally qualified understanding of things.
That's part of CDDL, not SCA.
Again, I think a signed agreement has certain implications (beyond
joint-ownership) that the license alone would not. But I'm not the
person to confirm that with.
In any case if folks want to get their code integrated into ON, then
they will have to follow ON's rules, still. I don't see how that is a
problem. (It may mean that at some later date the Contributor has to
sign an SCA. So what?)
It also makes that later process a lot slower and more complicated.
There's a big difference between someone's verbal assent that they
have the right to contribute something and won't assert patents, etc.
and a written, signed agreement :)
We don't currently require that from everyone.
Note that such an agreement is *only* between Sun and the contributor.
Yes, but only because there is no other legal entity (that I know of) to
whom such an agreement can be made with. If there were a community
foundation, etc. that could be done instead. This is a very old argument :)
Cheers,
--
Shawn Walker
_______________________________________________
opensolaris-code mailing list
opensolaris-code@opensolaris.org
http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/opensolaris-code
