Richard Lowe wrote:
Ian Murdock wrote:
On 5/31/07, Al Hopper [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Thu, 31 May 2007, James Carlson wrote:
Roy T. Fielding writes:
As I said, the proposal is obviously wrong. One of these days, Sun
marketing will stop trying to run this project from the peanut
It appears to me that item #2 can be broken down further. The idea of
having a reference distribution is totally different from the
requirement to be compatible.
Right; AFAIK distributions like Nexenta would not fall under the
compatible definition and that would be a shame.
What I would
On 5/31/07, Keith M Wesolowski [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Thu, May 31, 2007 at 09:22:20PM -0400, Ian Murdock wrote:
So, it seems the crux of the matter is the following decision:
1. OpenSolaris should remain a source base only. Sun
and others use that source base to build (potentially
Ian Murdock wrote:
On 5/31/07, Al Hopper [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Thu, 31 May 2007, James Carlson wrote:
Roy T. Fielding writes:
As I said, the proposal is obviously wrong. One of these days, Sun
marketing will stop trying to run this project from the peanut
gallery,
but that doesn't
On Thu, May 31, 2007 at 09:22:20PM -0400, Ian Murdock wrote:
So, it seems the crux of the matter is the following decision:
1. OpenSolaris should remain a source base only. Sun
and others use that source base to build (potentially incompatible)
operating systems based on the OpenSolaris
On Fri, 1 Jun 2007, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
It appears to me that item #2 can be broken down further. The idea of
having a reference distribution is totally different from the
requirement to be compatible.
Right; AFAIK distributions like Nexenta would not fall under the
compatible
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
Keith M Wesolowski wrote:
If you want to create an OpenSolaris reference distribution, or any
distribution that advertises itself as having that status, some type
of community-wide approval will be required. It seems likely that the
OGB is the appropriate body to consider such a proposal.
John Plocher writes:
Keith M Wesolowski wrote:
If you want to create an OpenSolaris reference distribution, or any
distribution that advertises itself as having that status,
Why does Indiana have to meet these requirements when Nexenta, Belinix,
MartUX, Schillix, SX, and all the other
Glynn Foster writes:
Including a list of leaders is easily doable, though I was worried that it
might
alienate the people who are keen to be involved - or those within other
projects
that are doing a lot of the work building the technology. If it's a necessity
for an approval add Ian
This is a case (as I believe many real world cases will be) where it
isn't clear that the proposed project fits entirely within an existing
community. How do we prevent bugs in governance, bugs in the community
organization, and misunderstanding by outsiders (and insiders) from
preventing
Brian Nitz wrote:
For example, think of an outsider trying to create and integrate a set
of educational software into an educational OpenSource distribution.
Is there an educational opensource community? No.
How do I create an educational opensource community? (I'd guess you
have to be a
On May 31, 2007, at 13:36, James Carlson wrote:
I don't think anyone is saying that you can't create a distribution
yourself without bothering with any project, community, or governing
board. You can. Knock yourself out.
But that's not what's happening. If a Sun-sponsored team went off
Simon Phipps writes:
On May 31, 2007, at 13:36, James Carlson wrote:
I don't think anyone is saying that you can't create a distribution
yourself without bothering with any project, community, or governing
board. You can. Knock yourself out.
But that's not what's happening. If a
I was in the process of writing my own proposal for a reference build
(I got sidetracked because of all the distracting Indiana discussion),
I am including my incomplete draft proposal for consideration and
comment:
Proposal OpenSolaris Reference Distribution v0.1
1. Introduction and
+1. I'm 100% in the camp with those who hold the views
expressed in this message (and, of course, those expressed in
James' message subsequent to this one).
Eric
On Thu, 31 May 2007, James Carlson wrote:
John Plocher writes:
Keith M Wesolowski wrote:
If you want to create an OpenSolaris
On Wed, May 30, 2007 at 11:17:25PM -0400, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Although I don't agree with the requirement of a Sun Employee to have
final sayso on decisions, I would like to voice my support for this
project.
No such requirement imposed by the Constitution or OGB/2007/001. Are
you
On Thu, 31 May 2007, Simon Phipps wrote:
On May 31, 2007, at 15:24, Brian Gupta wrote:
One other comment. Generally, a project proposal, would be posted to
the interested communities for comment, before being submitted fait
acompli to the OGB. (I have cc'ed in those communities that I think,
Keith M Wesolowski writes:
On Wed, May 30, 2007 at 11:17:25PM -0400, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Although I don't agree with the requirement of a Sun Employee to have
final sayso on decisions, I would like to voice my support for this
project.
No such requirement imposed by the
James Carlson wrote:
What I understand Keith to be saying (and what I agree with here) is
that if you're going to do that in the name of OpenSolaris itself --
not just PlocherX but OpenSolaris Reference Release -- then that's
logically something that ought to be a deliberate decision of the
James Carlson wrote:
The part that you snipped away was where John Plocher was asserting
that this case would somehow prevent future distributions (such as the
ones we now have) from even starting. I don't believe that's the
case.
I don't think I was asserting anything like that. It was 3am,
On Wed, May 30, 2007 at 10:58:21PM -0700, John Plocher wrote:
Why does Indiana have to meet these requirements when Nexenta, Belinix,
MartUX, Schillix, SX, and all the other OS.o distros don't?
It doesn't. In fact, it doesn't have to meet any requirements at all
to be a project except those
John Plocher writes:
James Carlson wrote:
What I understand Keith to be saying (and what I agree with here) is
that if you're going to do that in the name of OpenSolaris itself --
not just PlocherX but OpenSolaris Reference Release -- then that's
logically something that ought to be a
John Plocher writes:
James Carlson wrote:
The part that you snipped away was where John Plocher was asserting
that this case would somehow prevent future distributions (such as the
ones we now have) from even starting. I don't believe that's the
case.
I don't think I was asserting
Hi,
James Carlson wrote:
This discussion is obviously not getting anywhere, so if project leads
aren't available and the project somehow still wants to go forward,
then let's open the whole topic of the project creation process back
up again at the next OGB meeting. Please do try to
On May 31, 2007, at 12:01 PM, Glynn Foster wrote:
1.4 Involvement
There is a strong intention for this to be a community grass roots
project, with open contribution. We hope for this project to be
consensus driven, though ultimately the project leads will need
to dictate
If this is an OpenSolaris activity, it will obey the Group voting
procedures documented in the constitution. There is no such thing as
a sole arbiter at OpenSolaris, period.
Check out the following text CNET article: http://tinyurl.com/ys7hb2
Relevant text:
And although Foster said the
On May 31, 2007, at 1:40 PM, Brian Gupta wrote:
If this is an OpenSolaris activity, it will obey the Group voting
procedures documented in the constitution. There is no such thing as
a sole arbiter at OpenSolaris, period.
Check out the following text CNET article: http://tinyurl.com/ys7hb2
Roy T. Fielding wrote:
On May 31, 2007, at 1:40 PM, Brian Gupta wrote:
If this is an OpenSolaris activity, it will obey the Group voting
procedures documented in the constitution. There is no such thing as
a sole arbiter at OpenSolaris, period.
Check out the following text CNET article:
Roy T. Fielding writes:
As I said, the proposal is obviously wrong. One of these days, Sun
marketing will stop trying to run this project from the peanut gallery,
but that doesn't change the fact that the proposal cannot be accepted
by OpenSolaris as written.
On the plus side, it looks like
On Thu, 31 May 2007, James Carlson wrote:
Roy T. Fielding writes:
As I said, the proposal is obviously wrong. One of these days, Sun
marketing will stop trying to run this project from the peanut gallery,
but that doesn't change the fact that the proposal cannot be accepted
by OpenSolaris as
So, it seems the crux of the matter is the following decision:
1. OpenSolaris should remain a source base only. Sun
and others use that source base to build (potentially incompatible)
operating systems based on the OpenSolaris code base.
2. OpenSolaris should be an operating system in its own
On 5/31/07, Al Hopper [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Thu, 31 May 2007, James Carlson wrote:
Roy T. Fielding writes:
As I said, the proposal is obviously wrong. One of these days, Sun
marketing will stop trying to run this project from the peanut gallery,
but that doesn't change the fact that
On Thu, May 31, 2007 at 09:22:20PM -0400, Ian Murdock wrote:
So, it seems the crux of the matter is the following decision:
1. OpenSolaris should remain a source base only. Sun
and others use that source base to build (potentially incompatible)
operating systems based on the OpenSolaris
Ian Murdock wrote:
So, it seems the crux of the matter is the following decision:
1. OpenSolaris should remain a source base only. Sun
and others use that source base to build (potentially incompatible)
operating systems based on the OpenSolaris code base.
2. OpenSolaris should be an
What is stopping this project starting?
From what I can see is that the OGB have approved a new project
proposal method and they want to start using it. The one real problem I
can see with this is while it is approved, I can not see where it is
officially published. What the hell. Let's try
On Thu, 31 May 2007, Ian Murdock wrote:
On 5/31/07, Al Hopper [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Thu, 31 May 2007, James Carlson wrote:
Roy T. Fielding writes:
As I said, the proposal is obviously wrong. One of these days, Sun
marketing will stop trying to run this project from the peanut
P.S. - The decision really isn't as stark as that just yet. All we're
asking for is a project where we can *explore* #2..
:) You don't need a project to do this. We are sorta exploring right now.
I suggest using approachability-discuss as your CG mailing list to
start your exploration.
Go
Al Hopper wrote:
On Thu, 31 May 2007, Ian Murdock wrote:
On 5/31/07, Al Hopper [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Thu, 31 May 2007, James Carlson wrote:
Roy T. Fielding writes:
As I said, the proposal is obviously wrong. One of these days, Sun
marketing will stop trying to run this project
On Thu, May 31, 2007 at 10:41:52AM +1200, Glynn Foster wrote:
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
Keith M Wesolowski wrote:
The process requires that this be sent to one or more community groups
for sponsorship consideration - have you sent it to the Distributions
and Packaging Group? The Constitution and OGB/2007/001 require any
project proposal to come from a Group.
Are we actually
On Wed, May 30, 2007 at 04:24:40PM -0700, Alan Coopersmith wrote:
Keith M Wesolowski wrote:
The process requires that this be sent to one or more community groups
for sponsorship consideration - have you sent it to the Distributions
and Packaging Group? The Constitution and OGB/2007/001
Hi,
Keith M Wesolowski wrote:
On Thu, May 31, 2007 at 10:41:52AM +1200, Glynn Foster wrote:
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
On May 31, 2007, at 00:37, Keith M Wesolowski wrote:
On Wed, May 30, 2007 at 04:24:40PM -0700, Alan Coopersmith wrote:
Keith M Wesolowski wrote:
The process requires that this be sent to one or more community
groups
for sponsorship consideration - have you sent it to the
Distributions
On Thu, May 31, 2007 at 01:02:16PM +1200, Glynn Foster wrote:
Including a list of leaders is easily doable, though I was worried
that it might alienate the people who are keen to be involved - or
those within other projects that are doing a lot of the work
building the technology. If it's a
Hey,
Keith M Wesolowski wrote:
If you want to create an OpenSolaris reference distribution, or any
distribution that advertises itself as having that status, some type
of community-wide approval will be required. It seems likely that the
OGB is the appropriate body to consider such a
On Thu, May 31, 2007 at 02:04:46PM +1200, Glynn Foster wrote:
No where did I mention a reference distribution - I agree, we're not
necessarily at that point yet. Maybe we can schedule a discussion at
next week's OGB meeting?
We can, but I think it would be premature. First, I was making
Although I don't agree with the requirement of a Sun Employee to have
final sayso on decisions, I would like to voice my support for this
project.
Let us begin discussions in an appropriate list to flesh out proposal details.
brian
___
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
Keith M Wesolowski wrote:
If you want to create an OpenSolaris reference distribution, or any
distribution that advertises itself as having that status,
Why does Indiana have to meet these requirements when Nexenta, Belinix,
MartUX, Schillix, SX, and all the other OS.o distros don't?
Why are
50 matches
Mail list logo
