On Feb 10, 2007, at 7:18 AM, Jim Grisanzio wrote:

In parts, this document attempts to thwart conversation on OpenSolaris, and I don't support that strategy under any circumstance -- especially since so many of us have worked so hard to have /open/ conversations. Also, the OpenSolaris Community is nascent, and I believe we should /encourage/ conversation, not / discourage/ it -- no matter what the issue is as long as the conversation is respectful.

You say "OpenSolaris Community", but you don't define what that means.
How do you have a conversation with the community when you have no idea
who you are talking to on this list?

Is the OpenSolaris Community the people subscribed to this list?
I don't think so, since the list is open for anyone to post and
that can be easily influenced by an orchestrated media campaign.

Is it the people who post the most messages to this list?  No, there
are quite a few people who only post here because they are not working
on OpenSolaris, for one reason or another.  In fact, there is only a
relatively small number of hard-core Solaris developer/advocates on
this list who have a seemingly endless capacity for reading and
responding to mail.  And that number decreases every time there is
an irrelevant conversation on this list.

The OGB does not want to "thwart conversation".  I would like for
the conversation to be richer, containing actual facts and reasoning
based on a common source of information, and not just a bunch of
gossip around a marketing campaign that is neither informed nor
sensitive to the requirements of *this* community.  And, when that
conversation takes place, it needs to be somewhere that only the
community members can post to -- not anyone who happens to swing by
the forums in response to the marketing campaign.  That is how we
can have a conversation with the community.

Apache has project-specific "use", development, and private lists,
occasionally a project-wide general list, one community list
(where only contributors can post but the archives are readable by
anyone), one private members list (open only to ASF members), and
one board list (open to members and officers).  When we want to
have a conversation with a project, we have it on that project's
general or dev list (only personnel, NDA, and not-yet-announced
security issues are allowed on private lists).  When we want to
have a conversation with the entire Apache community, we have it on
either the community list (for development/project-wide issues) or
the members list (for strategic policy or business issues).

There is no anonymous communication at Apache and no forum software
for any of those lists, and thus no transients or trolls can have
undue influence on the conversation.  Those conversations aren't
always pretty, and they can explode at times as well, but at least
we know that the persons talking and being talked to are part of
our community.  We know they are part of it because they have earned
the right to be named as such, and thus have a vested interest in
the ongoing health of the community as a whole.

Easily the biggest problem that I have had with the way that
OpenSolaris has been organized is the way that community lists were
created without an emphasis on contribution, and the notion that
anyone who happens to register on the website is instantly
considered part of the community. In fact, they are just observers,
and no more part of the community than the folks driving past
my neighborhood.  I know this is a bootstrapping process, and that
the actual communities will sort themselves out in time, but we
are at a critical juncture right now with regards to setting up
the real project governance via a constitution that will allow
each community to form and maintain itself.  Now is not the time
to be pretending that a conversation on this list is actually
engaging the OpenSolaris Community.  The conversation can wait
until the facts are on the table and the community is well-defined,
which is what the position paper says.

....Roy
_______________________________________________
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
[email protected]

Reply via email to