On Jan 31, 2007, at 8:21 PM, Shawn Walker wrote:
I can't agree with this. I think the processes are more of an issue than any contributor agreement.
The CA is a process, and it's one process out of many that needs to be rectified. I wasn't going to sit there and enumerate every one of them that came to mind, but the CA was at the top of the list for me.
Not only that, I don't think an OpenSolaris ORG will somehow magically make the people that have second thoughts about this feel any better. The organization will likely be seen merely as a puppet of SUN if it existed (even if it isn't!).
I'm talking a real org here, such as a 501(3)(c). (Here in the US, that is the legal definition of a not-for-profit organization). It would be a legal entity all its own, with its own board, elections and constitution. Sounds familiar, right? But what it would do is form a concrete basis for, to use a metaphor, "the separation of church and state". All legal dealings would be with the ORG, not SUNW. By extension, that means the community.... which is us.
Being a ORG-proper is a lot more than just registering a .org domain and operating under it.
Many people have accused RedHat of the same thing with Fedora and they don't have a contributor agreement as far as I know. So I don't see how this matters...
But it does, because there is a CA in existence /today/... that /all/ non-SUNW people who want to contribute have to sign. My issue isn't the CA.. it's a good idea. Accountability is good. My issue is with who is administering the CA. For someone who gets the OpenSolaris code, makes a fix, and wants to put it back, they have to make a deal with Sun Microsystems Inc to do so... not the Community as I believe that's who it should be with.
/dale _______________________________________________ opensolaris-discuss mailing list [email protected]
