Simon Phipps wrote:
> OK, so (at the risk of me commenting polarising the usual suspects!)
> let's go to that place. Given the enormity of the OpenSolaris project, I
> think it would be very smart indeed to segment the online community
> presence into a "co-creation" grouping whose common purpose is to
> develop the code from which distro builders create Solaris, OpenSolaris
> and other distros, and an "adopter" grouping whose purpose is to deploy
> and use the resulting distros and software appliances. I'd also want the
> distro builders to be welcome to do their work as part of the
> "co-creator" grouping is they wish, although to date most have worked
> elsewhere.
We have long recognised that people were already forming their own
sub-communities and developing their own infrastructure, and that has
never been an issue. What we didn't want however was a fragmented
membership database, where people had to register and log in multiple
times on the various web properties. This is problematic because it is
unnecessarily painful for members ("Did I change my password in all the
places I am registered?"). It is also problematic because it ignores
the fact that a single person may be a member of multiple
constituencies, e.g. both a developer *and* an advocate. It also
ignores the fact that people will naturally migrate across
constituencies over time - "I was an user, now I'm an advocate too".
The redevelopment of the authentication and authorisation component of
opensolaris was chosen as the first stage because it underlies virtually
everything that the opensolaris community cares about - community web
pages, mailing lists, source code repositories, bug database, voting and
so forth. The aim is to provide a single, easily accessible membership
database that can be used across all the opensolaris web properties, no
matter which TLD they live under.
As for the desirability of segmenting the community, I am neutral - I
view my role as being that of providing the appropriate infrastructure
for the community, whatever form it transmogrifies into over time.
> I'd agree with you that all the piece-parts are available; I would also
> agree with Glynn that they are not currently assembled so that those two
> very distinct groups are able to go about their lives to best effect.
> So I like the general idea Glynn is proposing because it makes that
> happen, and I think his approach (of starting with the distinction
> between co-creators and adopters and working outwards) is the right one.
As I said, I am neutral on the need for a .com/.org split. However I
felt that the blog post painted the current situation in an unfairly
negative light, and I felt that point should be addressed.
There's an old joke about someone asking for directions and being told
"If you wanted to get to there, I wouldn't start from here", and I very
much feel that is the situation we are in with opensolaris. When we
started out we were told to head in a specific direction, and I feel we
have successfully done what we have been asked to do. What I think is
unfair is the suggestion that we have somehow not delivered "the thing
that we need", when what has actually happened is the goalposts have
moved. To characterise what we have at present as a failure of some
sort is incorrect - we have what was asked for. The fact that we now
need something different is not a failing of what we have done so far,
it is a sign of growth.
--
Alan Burlison
--
_______________________________________________
website-discuss mailing list
[email protected]
