I'd ask for us lurkers, that this isn't taken offline... If you want to take it off smf-discuss, I am ok listening in on sysadmin-discuss.
On Nov 20, 2007 9:20 PM, Rainer Heilke <rheilke at dragonhearth.com> wrote: > Sorry, long day at work... > > Liane Praza wrote: > > Rainer Heilke wrote: > >> While I do not think the categories (nor my placement in them) are > >> entirely accurate > > > > OK. My mistake. > > No problem. As you said, this discussion is a lot to wade through. > > > , and also miss the grammatical argument, I do agree > >> that the current proposal, as written, is of dubious value and may as > >> well be closed. > > > > Then you're in support of Mark's proposed way forward? > > Yes, I think so. The current proposal, as written, does little for us, > and some would argue is damaging. I think it should be withdrawn, and we > all take a step back, discuss what we are wanting and why, and come to a > consensus of how to accommodate the most people (and that includes the > SMF team, which had specific reasons for the choices they made). The > wiki may be a useful way to attain this goal without the waters getting > muddied by 739 pages worth of discussion going every which way. > > > (I am. I'd like to see a way forward that involves the small set of > > interested parties be able to report back to the larger aliases with an > > updated proposal. The current conversation doesn't seem to be > > converging on a concise updated proposal, so I'm not sure that > > continuing it on this large alias is helpful. > > Agreed. The wiki also makes it easier for people like myself to keep > abreast of the discussion when they do not always have access to their > OpenSolaris.org email (which, for me as an example, goes to home). > > > There's a reasonably > > small set of folks who are passionate about this as shown by continuing > > to participate in the discussion, so it'd be good to see us discuss it > > offline and either come up with a unified proposal, or at least a set of > > clear competing proposals the larger group could then provide feedback > on.) > > To be honest, I don't think all proposals need to be "competing." With > the right willingness to give and take, we may be able to accommodate > multiple parts. For example, thinking of my wish for a test function, > perhaps calling it "start/stop" is not the best choice. Maybe we need an > "enable -test" or something, which behaves the way I would like. That > would satisfy those who do not want what could be a dangerous top-level > verb. And so on. > > We will continue to need your input, though, in case something we all > agree on inadvertently requires breaking something that is already in > full production (like if "enable -test" requires significant replumbing > of the "enable" function). > > Rainer > > -- > Mind the gap. > _______________________________________________ > sysadmin-discuss mailing list > sysadmin-discuss at opensolaris.org > http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/sysadmin-discuss > -- - Brian Gupta http://opensolaris.org/os/project/nycosug/ -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://mail.opensolaris.org/pipermail/smf-discuss/attachments/20071120/ba508b88/attachment.html>
