On Tue, Mar 18, 2008 at 4:34 PM, Richard Lowe <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > John Plocher <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > [dropped advocacy-discuss] > > > > Eric Boutilier wrote: > >> On Tue, 18 Mar 2008, John Plocher wrote: > >>> Rather than inventing a solution and then trying to fit > >>> everything into it, > >> > >> Not sure I follow. > > > > I get the impression that the solution is "let's have an > > OS.com *and* an OS.org", but we still don't have a common > > understanding of what the problem is. > > > > I'd rather start with a problem statement that we all > > understand, come up with a common vision of what the > > world would look like if the problems were all fixed, > > and then work on figuring out what needs to be done > > to get there. > > > >> Fair enough. As for me, I still believe that a plan that aims to > >> gradually (over a year or two?) phase things so that eventually > >> everything falls under one or the other > > > > Why would this be any better than simply redoing OS.org? > > (or am I being dense and you are simply alluding to a shift > > in charter from one style of community governance to another?) > > I'd assumed the aim was to avoid that. Such that opensolaris.com > aimed squarely at users and all that stuff, but opensolaris.org (and > thus us) get left alone.
I don't understand why this switch wouldn't be the opposite direction. As someone else mentioned earlier .org implies a non-commercial website. I would expect user groups, etc. to be there. I would expect opensolaris.com to be Sun's commercial portal to opensolaris. Maybe I'm just missing something... -- Shawn Walker, Software and Systems Analyst http://binarycrusader.blogspot.com/ "To err is human -- and to blame it on a computer is even more so." - Robert Orben _______________________________________________ website-discuss mailing list [email protected]
