Shawn Walker wrote:
Garrett D'Amore wrote:
Shawn Walker wrote:
Why do you need CCs to make decisions? Even then, you don't need
your own CG to have CCs if you align with the correct CG :)
We at least need a committee of folks who can make decisions about
the code that goes into the tree, because there will probably be
conflicts at some point. I think we should also be represented in
the larger community, and I don't think ON's interests will
accurately reflect our interest. I think a separate CG is called for
here.
The proposed project's work overlaps with much of what the ON CG does.
CGs are currently a higher-level community governance structure, so I
don't believe that this sort of project fits its current definition.
No, its disjoint. Sure, they both have kernel bits in them. But as I
said, the ON CG has its own mission, which I believe is orthogonal to
the one I'm proposing here.
If ON were truly a *community* effort then I might feel differently.
Are there any non-Sun folks who have ON CC grants, for example? I very
much doubt it. (If only because the bar to contributing to ON is so
high, that nobody external is likely to be perceived to have contributed
enough to warrant a CC grant. Although Roland might be a notable
exception.)
I don't see this as a consolidation; and aren't consolidations
strictly a Sun thing anyway? I thought you were wanting to remove
all 'Sun' aspects from this...
Its a consolidation in that its a repository of common code, yes. It
will also have its own gatekeeper(s) and rules for integration. I
think you should go back and read the original proposal again. (Or
explain why you don't think this is a consolidation.)
I'm aware of what the consolidation concept is, and yes, I read the
proposal. But, I'll defer to your understanding of what is and is not
a consolidation. I had (mistakenly?) believed consolidations to have
a different scope than this one, and since this somewhat overlaps with
the existing ON consolidation, I was confused on this point.
I think this is definitely a consolidation, by having its own
gatekeepers, rules, etc.
I don't understand what the concern is about autonomy. The
OpenSolaris constitution makes it very clear here that project
decisions remain the purvue of projects; not of the CG (as I
understand it).
This might have been misunderstanding on my part. I thought a
Project had to abide by whatever decisions were made by sponsoring CG.
As I said before, I don't believe this to be true. A CG could
certainly decide to remove their sponsorship, but I see that event as
unlikely, and even in that extremely unlikely event, sponsorship could
always be sought from another CG.
That would require finding another CG.
As such, I'll digress on this point. I personally would not approve
a CG for this project; I don't believe it meets the criteria under
the current constitution for the scope that is intended for a
Community Group. But it isn't my decision, so proceed however you
will.
I still don't understand your objection. Do you believe that this
project does not warrant having its own representation at election
time? Why not? (Again, I think our interests and those of the
larger ON community might be divergent at times.)
No offence, but yes. Just because someone is a developer does not
mean that they should have a core contributor grant. But, let me
explain first.
You don't need to explain, I understand this. My concern here is in
fact ensuring that this group is *represented* in governance matters.
That means that not all of our contributors would have CC grants, but
those that did would be expected to represent this groups interest in
broader elections.
I am not in any way implying that the current considered members will
not be interested in community governance, I just wanted you to
understand why I believe the bar for a CC/CG is higher than
"contributing".
I agree with you on this matter. But that doesn't address my question,
which is why this group should not have its own *representation*. I'm
not suggesting that all contributors here would have it, but certainly
those that few that are leaders in the community and have an interest in
the governance matters would do so.
I'm eliding the whole SCA vs. CDDL matter. Frankly, that's a detail. I
don't personally care if we require an SCA or not. I think its not
necessary, but if the larger group believes it is, or if the
constitution requires it, then so be it. (Personally I think its wrong
that you have to enter into an agreement with Sun to supply code which
you know that Sun never intends to distribute.)
- Garrett
_______________________________________________
opensolaris-code mailing list
opensolaris-code@opensolaris.org
http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/opensolaris-code
