On Thu, Feb 01, 2007 at 11:06:34PM -0700, Scott Tracy wrote: >> 1) I voiced earlier that I was disappointed at previous projects that >> didn't have source available either, and that I was going to be a jerk >> about it from now on. > > I don't want that to be a gating factor to get community involvement > and create a beachhead for a project. In fact I can see where the > start of a project is a design doc and both folks in and outside Sun > do joint development to get a project started/completed.
Yup, I'd like to see that too. But that's not what Honeycomb is offering. Honeycomb is offering at best: involvement with the SDK - which is not the same as open sourcing Honeycomb. >> 2) The difference between Honeycomb and iSNS is that iSNS is targeting >> a consolidation (NWS) that already publishes source - so even if the >> iSNS developers never make their own source tarballs available (which I >> hope >> won't happen) - we at least have a reasonable assurance that it will >> be open in the end by way of the NWS consolidation. On the other hand, >> the best I've seen Honeycomb offer is "we will look at opening up >> Honeycomb". That's just not strong enough of an assurance for me. > > How would anyone outside of sun know this? And why does it matter > anyway. Refer to above, it cannot be a gate to start a project by > having source first. That's not the objective. If that's the case, > then how will the community do joint projects or have influence on > ones in progress? The idea is to be open through-out the process. > Maybe I'm missing the point. What problem are you solving by gating > folks without code from starting a project? Are there too many of > these that have failed or something? So far, yes. There are projects that haven't done anything with their project space. It bugs me. >> Clearly, Honeycomb does not yet have source - that's fine. Peter has >> already initiated discussion the Appliances community, let it live >> there until they have source ready - at which point they can request a >> project to host their source. > > So, let's talk through this so I can understand. How would you work > on a design doc with the community? Walk through the normal SDF > process on something you want to develop from start to finish in the > open. My thought? Discuss it (the design doc) on the appropriate community list, until it's refined enough to the point where people are jointly ready to start developing code. When that point is reached, propose a project, get the project created, and start hosting repositories with the code. What stage is Honeycomb at? Does code already exist? Are they ready to share it? From the sounds of it: no... Peter's original project proposal sounded more like a marketing focus group study than a joint development project. Maybe I'm just jaded... cheers, steve -- stephen lau // [EMAIL PROTECTED] | 650.786.0845 | http://whacked.net opensolaris // solaris kernel development _______________________________________________ opensolaris-discuss mailing list [email protected]
