* Nils Nieuwejaar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2006-03-16 10:49]:
> We would like to propose a solaris-internals community. The initial
> leaders would be Jonathan Chew, Eric Lowe, Eric Saxe, and me. We hope to
> expand this list quickly, with engineers from inside of Sun and from the
> community.
>
> There are quite a few communities dedicated to specific parts of Solaris,
> but none dedicated to Solaris as a whole. There is no single place where
> people can go for technical information about Solaris. The existing
> general OpenSolaris discussion groups are focussed primarily on OpenSolaris
> distribution, building, an usage issues, rather than on low-level technical
> details.
>
> The solaris-internals community would host one or more discussion groups.
> Initially there would just be a single group: solaris-internals. If the
> traffic warranted, we could create more specific discussions within the
> group. Some possible child discussions might be solaris-internals-newbies,
> solaris-internals-vm, solaris-internals-scheduling, etc.
>
> This group would serve as a repository for design documents that do not
> fall into one of the existing communities. This documents would cover both
> new projects as well as whatever historical information we can get
> clearance to publish. By acting as a central repository, this group would
> provide a way for engineers to make technical information publicly
> available without requiring them to undertake the responsibility of
> creating and maintaining their own communities.
>
> If the group prospers, would could propose folding some of the less active
> technical communities into it, reducing the proliferation of specialized
> communities.
I believe this proposal needs to provide further contrasts against
existing communities and projects to make aspects more clear.
(As a nit, the bare word "solaris" is not an appropriate part for a
community name. I'm also not sure that "opensolaris" is better, as
there are many participating technologies in OpenSolaris as a whole
that could reasonably claim to have meaningful "internals".)
1. What is the relationship between this community and existing,
demonstrably technical communities, like the networking, zones,
and zfs communities?
2. What is the relationship between this community and the existing ON
(Nevada) community? Why is that alias, or a second alias (or
project) not appropriate for hosting this content? (Why not
[EMAIL PROTECTED])
3. What is the relationship between this community and the existing
opensolaris-code and opensolaris-rfe aliases (which are discussing
technical topics regarding ON components)?
4. We're examining communities commenting on new community proposals
and community-to-project demotion processes on cab-discuss; no
aspect of that discussion really suggests that one community
should propose its existence based on the subsumption of others.
I certainly don't think that that's a suitable mechanism for the
alleged proliferation problem.
Cheers
Stephen
--
Stephen Hahn, PhD Solaris Kernel Development, Sun Microsystems
[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://blogs.sun.com/sch/
_______________________________________________
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
