Jim Grisanzio wrote: > Sure, if UGs have their own infrastructure off opensolaris.org, we can > link to them. But the value of having opensolaris.org is that we can > offer a project space and list with relatively little effort on our part > and the UG's part. For that, though, we need them to be sponsored by a > CG -- which is both a strong benefit, obviously, but an additional layer > of complexity that hides the UGs a bit. I'm ok with a .com site with UGs > living there (pending the governance issue) but I'm also fine updating > the current Constitution and opensolaris.org to be consistent and to > consider a new classification so UGs are out from under Advocacy. I > don't have a strong position about how to solve the problem, so I'm just > bringing it up for discussion. It's not even a problem, per say. It's > just exploring options for the next step since I think we have the > opportunity to grow much faster in this area.
One of the problems with the current OSO portal app is that the concept of 'community group' and 'project' is baked into it, and into the underlying database. To add a new collective type for UGs we'd have to make major application changes. The new Auth application allows new collective types to be defined - that means that if the community want to recognise UGs as a new top-level OSO entity, that will be possible when the new infrastructure starts to be deployed. -- Alan Burlison -- _______________________________________________ website-discuss mailing list [email protected]
