On 2/4/07, S Destika <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Why are Sun developers not part of the OpenSolaris > developer community? > I have never meant that - I have said Sun in driver's seat of the community train (IOW the key decision maker, the one who installs all the pawns and directs the pieces and controls the rules of the game) is not acceptable for an open project. Sun, in that role, cannot be a part of community.
besides an OGB that is to be elected ASAP, we also have a constitution draft that will dictate how a lot of things are to be done
> The development process sets out rules; and if you > abide by those rules > there is nothing that can prevent you from committing > code. Who set those rules? What if I have a valid reason to change a rule or two? Why can the community not set their own rules? Why is that you take it for granted that Sun will do things on behalf of the community? To date how many rules were set in stone by the community (exclude Sun)? Why do I keep hearing that Sun will setup a SCM, Sun will do this, Sun will do that? Where can I see community's (exclude Sun) decisions being taken forward? Examples?
the constitution is currently a draft, join the discusion, ask for any changes you would like, those will be reviewed by other members of the community and are likely to be accepted if they are good enough. the scm is in the works and was elected by the community based on technical merits, the thread is still in the archives if you want to read it. the ogb members will also be elected by the community, sun included
> Perhaps I don't understand the word community as you > understand it; > but to believe that a community exists of only like > minded people > is flawed. Community in this context is an entity bound together for a cause. Your analogy would lead me to believe that whole world is a community - no distinguishing factors, no barriers, but no cause as well. That doesn't make any sense. You have to have a concept of a common, well defined, meaningful, non-conflicting cause when you consider a community. > But I've glad we've figured out one thing: you and I > have completely > different understanding of what a community is and > particularly what > the OpenSolaris community is comprised of. I see it > as all-inclusive, > all encompassing; free for all OpenSolaris kindred > spirits. > But you, you seem to want to specifically exclude > Sun, Sun customers > (Sun employees?) and perhaps others from this > community. > That's because you are missing the "common cause with no conflicting or contradictory interests" part from the community. IOW you can have a "hunters community" where all people have a single cause - hunt some animal. But you cannot have an entity a part of that community if it has an conflicting goal of, say destroying all weapons from the world as that would prevent the hunting community from hunting some day although it isn't imminent. Your definition of community will include all - the hunters, the people who destroy weapons, the people who demonstrate against hunting and people who don't like people who hunt. That won't make any sense.
will the community that wants to destroy all the weapons in the world even consider joining the hunter community? a community exists when they have a common goal for whatever reasons. Sun and the rest of the opensolaris community have that, they want opensolaris to be the best os out there. sun wants opensolaris to grow to make some profit selling support and such, other members of the community want the same because they thing opensolaris is the best tool for the job and want it to be even better. Redhat wants linux to improbe to make more profit selling it, other members of the linux community want linux to be better because that is what they use. it is you analogy that is flawed. nacho _______________________________________________ opensolaris-discuss mailing list [email protected]
