Richard Lowe <richlowe at richlowe.net> writes: > Alan Burlison <Alan.Burlison at sun.com> writes: > >> Richard Lowe wrote: >> >>>> And as for commit roles, it is still completely unclear how commit >>>> rights are going to be allocated - for example are these managed >>>> centrally for all ON committers, or does each project that >>>> contributes to ON manage its own pool of committers? In the >>>> absence of any such design decisions, it is difficult to come up >>>> with a database design. >>> >>> My understanding is that that would be the role of the community >>> behind a consolidation, regardless of interests others may have in >>> specific parts. Nothing else is workable. >> >> Do we have such a community for ON? The ON community doesn't appear >> to be such a beast, it seems to be a ragbag collection of projects >> that should probably live elsewhere. What would such a community look >> like? Would it just have one project, the source gate that it maganed, >> or some other structure? > > We don't have any functionity communitee for ON, no. As I voiced at
"functioning community" , I can type, really... > our meeting last week, I don't consider fixing ON to be our problem, I > have tried, I've failed, I no longer care. We should do what is > correct. I believe, as far as how this is documented in the whole > constituation thing, what I described above is correct. > > -- Rich
