> > > Glynn Foster wrote: > > > > > Hey, > > > > Here's the project proposal that should have been > out a long while > > back (apologies, I'm happy to take the blame on > this one). Before > > anyone gets too caught up in how little the > proposal actually > > covers, I intend to follow up with my thoughts if > and when the > > project alias gets created - I'd like that > discussion to be far more > > focused than opensolaris-discuss has been. > > > > > > Glynn > > [ snippage to save space ] > > +1 from me. > > FWIW, i believe that this project should be allowed > to proceed even though not > all its aspects/scope/components have been formally > defined. i believe that > allowing an experiment is more valuable than > disallowing it because of lack of > due process, missing paperwork or filling in the > wrong form. > > just my 0.02. > > --Stefan > +1 also from me.
We should be focussed on building OpenSolaris rather than brickwalls to stop projects such as Indiana. If the OGB/2007/001 can not handle Glynn proposal, then OGB/2007/001 is probably too inflexible for OpenSolaris and should be trashed before other proposals are subjected to it. Doug Doug This message posted from opensolaris.org _______________________________________________ opensolaris-discuss mailing list [email protected]
