Community, First let me apologize. I have been loath to write to a captive community. Please address all responses to me or to ogb-discuss at opensolaris.org rather than risking further traffic to a widely distributed list. (I only address the community because I feel that it is a topic of utmost importance to our identity as an open community.)
Shawn Walker has a proposal before the OGB that will be voted on later today. His proposal basically is asking to create a distro building community. Supposedly it is agnostic, but in reality it seems to be a precursor to an official "Indiana Project == OpenSolaris Binary distro" move by our benevolent sponsors. Many of us signed on to be developers and advocates to something quite different than what the leaders of the "Disto CG" believe. The distro CG core sponsors want to make an Official OpenSolaris distro, and set preconditions on what it means to be an OpenSolaris Disto. (As a member of the real distro building community I resent the arrogance of this). In particular the Indiana team has expressed that only binaries built by the Indiana team can be used to make an "OpenSolaris distro". This I disagree with, as anyone should be able to take the OpenSolaris source code and make an "OpenSolaris distro". (I believe that diversity is going to be our future strength.) I also feel that Keith's denigration of the OpenSolaris code base to a name such as Cosnix is misguided. Our code base is called OpenSolaris. "OpenSolaris" refers to our code base and our community. (And nothing else). (Frankly, I don't know what is happening in the secret negotiations between the OGB and Sun regarding the OpenSolaris trademark, but my heart fears for the worst. IE: Sun no longer feels it is in their business interests to have OpenSolaris simply refer to a code base, but rather a brand for a Sun product, which we now know as Project Indiana.) This issue may seem to be a simple thing but it is really a proxy for our identity. Is OpenSolaris.org a diverse community, or do we want to create a distro and build a singular community around it? (BTW - I have strong technical disagreements with the approach the Indiana team has approached packaging, which I hope explains my trespassing of your inbox). Please subscribe to ogb-discuss at opensolaris.org and make your opinions known regarding both this proposal and whether the Indiana team will determine our fate. This is important on both fronts, as the OGB needs to know how to represent the community. To subscribe please just send an email to ogb-discuss-subscribe at opensolaris.com and follow the instructions in the email response. Please make your opinions known even if you disagree with me, as if left unresolved this will continue to be a contentious issue for the community. (Remember make your opinions known on ogb-discuss. They need to know how to represent us.) Although writing to ogb-discuss at opensolaris.org prior to the meeting today, is probably the best way to make your voice heard, you can also try calling in on the following numbers at 12 PST (3PM EST): Participant Passcode: 6266208 Country Toll Numbers Freephone/Toll Free ============================================================================== CANADA 866-675-9751 NETHERLANDS 31-20-717-6836 0800-343-4332 NEW ZEALAND 64-9-970-4608 0800-441-636 USA 1-210-795-0500 1-877-807-6997 Thank you, Brian Gupta Solaris Advocate OpenSolaris.org Member On Jan 22, 2008 5:38 PM, Keith M Wesolowski <Keith.Wesolowski at sun.com> wrote: > On Tue, Jan 22, 2008 at 11:46:38AM -0500, James Carlson wrote: > > > > One community group in charge of all distributions seems too broad. > > > For making the decisions about the distro itself, like each distro's > > > release plans, it would seem a separate community group is necessary > > > - for example, why would Ian have a vote on Schillix release plans or > > > Joerg a vote on Indiana release plans? > > > > Actually, I think we'll need to get to that point, at least in some > > cases. > > > > It seems impractical to me to say that the release binding and > > schedule in use for something as big as ON is just "whatever." It > > needs to be something that the consumers of ON (that is, the > > distributors) agree on. If they can't all agree on one setting, then > > they'll need to fork ON into separate streams to contain various kinds > > of content, because there will inevitably be world-changing features > > (such as SMF in the past) that can integrate into a release of one > > binding, but not another. > > The way I've started thinking about this problem (and Mr. Walker's > proposal) is to define some nomenclature. Whether you like my names > is not really important; the fact is that these things exist, or could > exist. Nothing here should be taken to be a grant of trademark rights > or a statement of SMI's position, etc. > > Consix - The consolidations that exist currently, whether or not > represented by a functioning Community Group. This is the > freely-distributable portion of the content that makes up > Solaris Express. Consix is not itself a product but is > available for others to consume. > > Consix Community - The remains of the organisation originally formed > as the OpenSolaris Community. This organisation is > interested in the maintenance and development of Consix. > > OpenSolaris - A product of Sun Microsystems, Inc. (SMI). This product > may or may not be based in whole or in part on Consix (see > below). > > OpenSolaris Community - A community of users and distribution > developers interested in OpenSolaris, the OpenSolaris > Distribution Constructor, and the OpenSolaris workalikes > created thereby. > > OpenSolaris Distribution Constructor - A product of SMI that enables > third parties to create OpenSolaris workalikes in ways that > allow them certain uses of SMI's trademarks. > > Note that the OpenSolaris Community and the Consix Community could in > theory be parts of the same organisation; this isn't meant to suggest > a particular political structure but rather a description of roles. > > The first question we need to answer is whether OpenSolaris consumes > Consix. There are (at least) two possible models here. In one model > - let us call it Alpha - Consix continues to exist as a separate > collection of technology independently developed by the Consix > Community, and the OpenSolaris Community takes snapshots or releases > of Consix from time to time to develop into its distribution products. > In the second model - Beta - Consix, if it exists at all, is entirely > separate from OpenSolaris. Instead, the OpenSolaris Community forks > from Consix at inception and never looks back. > > Model Alpha does indeed require some mechanism by which consumers of > Consix - prominent but not exclusive among them the OpenSolaris > Community - must agree on release bindings and schedules. This > suggests a need for some arbitration or steering committee within the > Consix Community. The $64,000 question, of course, is how it would be > structured. > > Model Beta does not really have this same problem, because the > OpenSolaris Community owns its entire source base. Workalike > distributions are by design and intent subordinate to OpenSolaris > itself, so the people responsible for managing OpenSolaris's > repositories have all necessary authority to make decisions about > releases and bindings. In this model, the Consix Community still > needs some way to determine when to change utsname and what it means, > but I think the Consix Community would have less difficulty with > contributor-driven decision-making if the OpenSolaris folks can go > their own way. > > It's not clear to me whether this proposal is intended to be a part of > the Consix Community or the OpenSolaris Community (that is, which > model is assumed). Nor is it clear that it fits well into either. > > The Consix Community has adopted a set of "Community Groups" that are > in effect SIGs. They are narrow in scope and rarely encompass > conflicting interests. Mr. Walker's proposal does not adhere to that > model at all. There is no doubt that something has to replace the > historic W-teams, but I do not see why a Distribution CG would do this > more effectively than Mr. Coopersmith's previous proposals or some > other mechanism. And I'm troubled by your suggestion that the right > of suffrage derives primarily from consumption rather than production; > that's not an idea found anywhere in the Consix Constitution. Still, > as the OpenSolaris CG rather than the Distribution CG, a proposal not > too unlike this one might fit neatly into the Consix Community: one > may note that a single distribution appears to fit very neatly into > the definition of a Community Group as described by the Consix > Constitution and as envisioned by Mr. Fielding. > > If this is intended for the OpenSolaris Community, I think it needs to > be considered in light of whatever kind of governance structure that > community will want. If they intend to inherit as if by fork(2) the > OpenSolaris Constitution, they need to think about how your plan fits > in. Frankly, it seems to me that what you are proposing is not a new > Consix CG but rather the OpenSolaris Community itself, under which > there might exist political subdivisions for the various OpenSolaris > workalikes but de facto absolute control of shared technical strategy > lies with the trademark holder. > > Inherent in my thoughts here is the idea that Consix and OpenSolaris > aren't really compatible ideologically. Maybe I'm wrong about that. > > -- > Keith M Wesolowski "Sir, we're surrounded!" > FishWorks "Excellent; we can attack in any direction!" > _______________________________________________ > > ogb-discuss mailing list > ogb-discuss at opensolaris.org > http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/ogb-discuss > -- - Brian Gupta http://opensolaris.org/os/project/nycosug/
