Bill Sommerfeld wrote:
> On Thu, 2007-11-01 at 21:12 -0700, John Plocher wrote:
>> In addition, the OpenSolaris
>> community itself produces a distro that is compatible.
>
> I think "a distro" is unnecessarily constraining.
+1
I used the term in a "at this current time" context;
as I've said be
I have spent more than 1 hours to read all your mails. It's really
intersting and I'm not sure of what I was expecting from OpenSolaris
project regarding distros.
I did got to bed last night with "Indiana name discussion" in mind.
Le 1 nov. 07 à 03:01, Dennis Clark
I agree with Steven Lau on this one.
This message posted from opensolaris.org
___
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
On Thu, 2007-11-01 at 21:12 -0700, John Plocher wrote:
> I am telling another $foo distro maker that all the $foo distros
> are either compatible, derivative or incompatible $foo distross,
> as defined by the OpenSolaris community. In addition, the OpenSolaris
> community itself produces a distro
Alan Coopersmith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Well I remember we had this discussion in late 2004.
>
> Good. Then you realize it's now 3 years later and many things have
> changed, as have many of the people involved, so the decisions will
> be different.
I don't see that the constraints did c
On Wed, 2007-10-31 at 09:37 -0700, Alan Coopersmith wrote:
> Joerg Schilling wrote:
> > I remember that we did aggree ~ 2.5 years ago, that Sun would not call a
> > distro OpenSolaris.
>
> I don't know who would have made that agreement, but like all
> software projects, nothing is ever permanent
Joerg Schilling wrote:
> Alan Coopersmith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> Joerg Schilling wrote:
>>> Alan Coopersmith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>>
Joerg Schilling wrote:
> I remember that we did aggree ~ 2.5 years ago, that Sun would not call a
> distro OpenSolaris.
I don't kn
Alan Coopersmith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Joerg Schilling wrote:
> > Alan Coopersmith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> >> Joerg Schilling wrote:
> >>> I remember that we did aggree ~ 2.5 years ago, that Sun would not call a
> >>> distro OpenSolaris.
> >> I don't know who would have made that
Joerg Schilling wrote:
> Alan Coopersmith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> Joerg Schilling wrote:
>>> I remember that we did aggree ~ 2.5 years ago, that Sun would not call a
>>> distro OpenSolaris.
>> I don't know who would have made that agreement, but like all
>> software projects, nothing is e
Jim Grisanzio writes:
> consensus. They are simply individual voices among everyone else. This
> also seems true of the OGB. When we hear from the OGB, many times the
> comments are qualified with "speaking for myself, not the OGB" and that
> also reduces the impact of the statement. If people a
Alan Coopersmith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Joerg Schilling wrote:
> > I remember that we did aggree ~ 2.5 years ago, that Sun would not call a
> > distro OpenSolaris.
>
> I don't know who would have made that agreement, but like all
> software projects, nothing is ever permanently decided, and
>P.S. - As far as the existing distros being harmed. I would judge
>whether or not they are being harmed by talking to the developers
>responsible for the various distros. We have already had the chief
>developer behind MartUX express outrage, and announce his intention to
>leave the community ov
On Thu, 1 Nov 2007, Jim Grisanzio wrote:
> Shawn Walker wrote:
>> On 31/10/2007, Alan Burlison <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>> Simon Phipps wrote:
>>>
> Who is it? I think it's an important question.
There is no arbiter - that would imply a political frame. This is an
open source co
Shawn Walker wrote:
> On 31/10/2007, Alan Burlison <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Simon Phipps wrote:
>>
Who is it? I think it's an important question.
>>> There is no arbiter - that would imply a political frame. This is an
>>> open source community - we iterate until we need to fall back o
On 31/10/2007, Ian Murdock <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Shawn Walker wrote:
> > On 31/10/2007, Al Hopper <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> On Wed, 31 Oct 2007, Brian Gupta wrote:
> >>
> >> snip .
> >>> anything, other than vote with our feet? (Shawn, I hope you have a
> >>> really good answe
Shawn Walker wrote:
> On 31/10/2007, Al Hopper <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> On Wed, 31 Oct 2007, Brian Gupta wrote:
>>
>> snip .
>>> anything, other than vote with our feet? (Shawn, I hope you have a
>>> really good answer, because you seem to be speaking for Sun marketing
>>> now, and t
> If Project Indiana wished to rename itself
> "OpenSolaris", one of the
> CGs that sponsored Project Indiana should have their
> OGB facilitator
> make a request to the OGB to have a community-wide
> vote to allow
> Indiana to be use the name "OpenSolaris".
+1 :)
Or even better, Project Indiana
Shawn Walker wrote:
> I think that's one of the holes in the current constitution. As far as
> I know, the only way for a vote to happen is for the OGB to call one
> either because they decided to or because a proposal was brought to
> them by the representative of a community group(s).
It's a ho
On 31/10/2007, Alan Burlison <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Simon Phipps wrote:
>
> >> Who is it? I think it's an important question.
> >
> > There is no arbiter - that would imply a political frame. This is an
> > open source community - we iterate until we need to fall back on plan B.
> > Hopefu
Simon Phipps wrote:
>> Who is it? I think it's an important question.
>
> There is no arbiter - that would imply a political frame. This is an
> open source community - we iterate until we need to fall back on plan B.
> Hopefully that doesn't happen.
That's ridiculous. We then end up havin
On Oct 31, 2007, at 22:09, Alan Burlison wrote:
> Simon Phipps wrote:
>
>>> Who has the mandate to say when iteration is appropriate and when
>>> the democratic process is appropriate?
>> Oh, the irony :-)
>
> I wasn't being ironic.
Well, actually...
> Who is it? I think it's an important
On Wed, Oct 31, 2007 at 09:49:16PM +, Simon Phipps wrote:
>
> On Oct 31, 2007, at 21:23, Alan Burlison wrote:
>
> > The normal way a democracy works is
>
> Framing OpenSolaris as a republic, constitutional monarchy or other
> political system doesn't help much in my view. This is an open
Simon Phipps wrote:
>> Who has the mandate to say when iteration is appropriate and when the
>> democratic process is appropriate?
>
> Oh, the irony :-)
I wasn't being ironic. Who is it? I think it's an important question.
--
Alan Burlison
--
___
On 10/31/07, Shawn Walker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 31/10/2007, Alan Burlison <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Shawn Walker wrote:
> >
> > >> So where is the announcement about step B - the vote?
> > >
> > > That would require the proposal to be finished; why don't you go help
> > > us finish i
On Oct 31, 2007, at 21:57, Alan Burlison wrote:
> Simon Phipps wrote:
>
>> Framing OpenSolaris as a republic, constitutional monarchy or
>> other political system doesn't help much in my view. This is an
>> open source community. The way it works is people do stuff
>> collectively together
Simon Phipps wrote:
> Framing OpenSolaris as a republic, constitutional monarchy or other
> political system doesn't help much in my view. This is an open source
> community. The way it works is people do stuff collectively together,
> rapidly iterating a solution to the problem they collectiv
> The A C B ordering that's being used here is certainly novel.
Yeah. It's a problem because it makes the system look like a joke. And I
don't care about the system, but if you've got it, you better use it.
Otherwise you'll be patriots-of-convenience. Get busy using it or get busy
dissolvin
On Oct 31, 2007, at 21:23, Alan Burlison wrote:
> The normal way a democracy works is
Framing OpenSolaris as a republic, constitutional monarchy or other
political system doesn't help much in my view. This is an open
source community. The way it works is people do stuff collectively
toget
Shawn Walker wrote:
>> Because I'm working up to 18 hours a day single-handedly trying to
>> rewrite opensolaris.org.
>
> For which you should be commended; but in the meantime let's be
> constructive in criticism? Please?
Actually, 'paid' is sufficient.
And as for constructive criticisms, I've
On 31/10/2007, Alan Burlison <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Shawn Walker wrote:
>
> >> So where is the announcement about step B - the vote?
> >
> > That would require the proposal to be finished; why don't you go help
> > us finish it?
>
> Because I'm working up to 18 hours a day single-handedly try
Shawn Walker wrote:
>> So where is the announcement about step B - the vote?
>
> That would require the proposal to be finished; why don't you go help
> us finish it?
Because I'm working up to 18 hours a day single-handedly trying to
rewrite opensolaris.org.
--
Alan Burlison
--
__
On 31/10/2007, Alan Burlison <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Shawn Walker wrote:
>
> > It's hard to propose something intangible; now we have something
> > tangible to base our proposal on. Seems far more logical that way,
> > doesn't it?
>
> So where is the announcement about step B - the vote?
That
Shawn Walker wrote:
> It's hard to propose something intangible; now we have something
> tangible to base our proposal on. Seems far more logical that way,
> doesn't it?
So where is the announcement about step B - the vote?
--
Alan Burlison
--
___
ope
Simon Phipps wrote:
> It's only a fait accompli if we fail to engage to positively fix issues
> we believe exist.
So I'll ask again - where is the formal manifesto, and when is it going
to be put to the community for a vote?
This issue is about making sure that any decision that is made has th
On 31/10/2007, Alan Burlison <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Shawn Walker wrote:
>
> >>> To me, I didn't see a naming announcement. What I saw was a project
> >>> going forward with an early prototype having chose a tentative name
> >>> for it until the community gets their collective posteriors in ge
Shawn Walker wrote:
>>> To me, I didn't see a naming announcement. What I saw was a project
>>> going forward with an early prototype having chose a tentative name
>>> for it until the community gets their collective posteriors in gear
>>> and makes a final decision.
>> Has the community been aske
Based on some last comments:
1. Set user expectations on what the user is actually
getting in this "OpenSolaris Developer preview 1"
distro.
2. Give a name that 'just makes sense' to the general
population to easily identify it as a openSolaris
product or distro. SXDE++ or 'Sunbeam' may confuse
p
[Reply-to points at [EMAIL PROTECTED] where I
suggest we focus discussion]
On Oct 31, 2007, at 20:16, Alan Burlison wrote:
> What will be the point of having a vote on something that is a fait
> accompli?
That's a very negative way to frame things, in my view. We are in a
time of change, and
On 31/10/2007, Alan Burlison <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Shawn Walker wrote:
>
> >> They've already made the naming announcement, and there has been no
> >> announcement of a vote. How is that *not* a fait accompli?
> >
> > That's a rather fatalistic view.
>
> I prefer 'factual view' myself.
Yes
On 31/10/2007, Ceri Davies <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 31, 2007 at 03:32:23PM -0500, Shawn Walker wrote:
> > On 31/10/2007, Alan Burlison <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > Shawn Walker wrote:
> > >
> > > >>> I just realized the above has lost some context, so just to be
> > > >>> clear.
Shawn Walker wrote:
>> They've already made the naming announcement, and there has been no
>> announcement of a vote. How is that *not* a fait accompli?
>
> That's a rather fatalistic view.
I prefer 'factual view' myself.
> To me, I didn't see a naming announcement. What I saw was a project
>
On Wed, Oct 31, 2007 at 03:32:23PM -0500, Shawn Walker wrote:
> On 31/10/2007, Alan Burlison <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Shawn Walker wrote:
> >
> > >>> I just realized the above has lost some context, so just to be
> > >>> clear... When I say "push" above, I'm referring only to the
> > >>> nam
On 31/10/2007, Alan Burlison <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Shawn Walker wrote:
>
> >>> I just realized the above has lost some context, so just to be
> >>> clear... When I say "push" above, I'm referring only to the
> >>> naming of the today's release. I aware there's a plan in the
> >>> works to h
On 31/10/2007, Alan Burlison <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Eric Boutilier wrote:
>
> > I just realized the above has lost some context, so just to be
> > clear... When I say "push" above, I'm referring only to the
> > naming of the today's release. I aware there's a plan in the
> > works to have a
Shawn Walker wrote:
>>> I just realized the above has lost some context, so just to be
>>> clear... When I say "push" above, I'm referring only to the
>>> naming of the today's release. I aware there's a plan in the
>>> works to have a vote on trademark policy aimed at future naming
>>> decisions
On 31/10/2007, Al Hopper <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Wed, 31 Oct 2007, Brian Gupta wrote:
>
> snip .
> > anything, other than vote with our feet? (Shawn, I hope you have a
> > really good answer, because you seem to be speaking for Sun marketing
> > now, and there are many people who
On Wed, 31 Oct 2007, Brian Gupta wrote:
snip .
> anything, other than vote with our feet? (Shawn, I hope you have a
> really good answer, because you seem to be speaking for Sun marketing
> now, and there are many people who are very upset about this, both
> within and outside of Sun.)
Eric Boutilier wrote:
> I just realized the above has lost some context, so just to be
> clear... When I say "push" above, I'm referring only to the
> naming of the today's release. I aware there's a plan in the
> works to have a vote on trademark policy aimed at future naming
> decisions.
What
On Wed, 31 Oct 2007, Eric Boutilier wrote:
> [ Moving to advocacy-discuss ]
>
> On Wed, 31 Oct 2007, Alan Burlison wrote:
>> Eric Boutilier wrote:
>>
>>> As Alan Coopersmith just alluded to, it's not up to the OGB to
>>> mandate a vote. (Nor is it up to Sun of course); and among those
>>> who do ha
Eric Boutilier wrote:
>> That's a ludicrous position. If the OGB doesn't mandate what will and
>> will not be voted on, who will?
>
> You're right, a mandate to hold a vote has to come from the top
> "appellate court" (the OGB in our case). My point, more
> correctly stated, is that the OGB chos
[ Moving to advocacy-discuss ]
On Wed, 31 Oct 2007, Alan Burlison wrote:
> Eric Boutilier wrote:
>
>> As Alan Coopersmith just alluded to, it's not up to the OGB to
>> mandate a vote. (Nor is it up to Sun of course); and among those
>> who do have the power -- Community Groups and their Contributo
Eric Boutilier wrote:
> As Alan Coopersmith just alluded to, it's not up to the OGB to
> mandate a vote.
That wasn't quite my point - if there is a proposal ready to be put
to a vote, it would be the OGB who put forth the vote to the members,
but I haven't seen any proposal yet that's ready to be
On 31/10/2007, Brian Gupta <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Ian decided to ignore that work. Ignoring the trademark and naming
Really? How so? He very clearly stated in the original post that
started this bruhaha that this is a work in progress and invited
others to contribute to it.
> With this blat
Shawn Walker wrote:
> The important thing to remember here is that no official decision has
> been made. Instead of a bunch of people running around grumpy, let's
> take this opportunity to ensure that we participate in the branding
> and trademark discussion taking place on trademark-policy-dev.
Eric Boutilier wrote:
> As Alan Coopersmith just alluded to, it's not up to the OGB to
> mandate a vote. (Nor is it up to Sun of course); and among those
> who do have the power -- Community Groups and their Contributors
> -- there isn't a collective push to put it to a vote.
That's a ludicrous p
On 10/31/07, Shawn Walker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Really, I don't see the problem here.
Don't you see? Ian acknowledged that there are serious misgiving with
his proposal/dictate. The community was earnestly working with Sun's
representatives, and making progress towards a set of guidelines
Doug Scott wrote:
> Shawn Walker wrote:
>> 5) Have a community vote
>>
>
> Why? So far I have seen almost zero comments from core contributes from
> other communities. Is there really interest?
We have a community-wide contributors list, but it's not used very much:
http://mail.opensolaris.
Doug Scott wrote:
>> 4) Propose it to the OGB
>
> Why? It should be proposed to Sun rather than the OGB. They own the
> trademark.
Officially, the OGB is the liason between the community and Sun, so you'ld
at least be asking the OGB to present the proposal to Sun on behalf of the
OpenSolaris co
Joerg Schilling wrote:
> I remember that we did aggree ~ 2.5 years ago, that Sun would not call a
> distro OpenSolaris.
I don't know who would have made that agreement, but like all
software projects, nothing is ever permanently decided, and
changes to decisions can and will be made as times chan
On 31/10/2007, Doug Scott <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Shawn Walker wrote:
> > On 31/10/2007, Stephen Lau <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> >> Richard L. Hamilton wrote:
> >>
> MC wrote:
>
>
> > Not that I care for bureaucracy, and not that I
> >
> >
> know what is ha
Eric Boutilier wrote:
> On Wed, 31 Oct 2007, Alan Burlison wrote:
>> MC wrote:
>>
>>> My understanding of the OpenSolaris constitution, community, and
OGB is that the OGB appoints members of the community ("core
contributers") to have the power to vote on issues that concern the
community.
Shawn Walker wrote:
> On 31/10/2007, Stephen Lau <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> Richard L. Hamilton wrote:
>>
MC wrote:
> Not that I care for bureaucracy, and not that I
>
>
know what is happening here, but...
> I t
"Shawn Walker" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Remember that Sun can use the trademark in whatever way they choose
> but they don't control the communities here. Instead of acting as if
> Sun has made any decisions for you, use the abilities given to you by
> the constitution you voted for.
I rememb
On Wed, 31 Oct 2007, Alan Burlison wrote:
> MC wrote:
>
>> My understanding of the OpenSolaris constitution, community, and OGB is that
>> the OGB appoints members of the community ("core contributers") to have the
>> power to vote on issues that concern the community.
>>
>> The naming issue obv
On 31/10/2007, Stephen Lau <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Richard L. Hamilton wrote:
> >> MC wrote:
> >>
> >>> Not that I care for bureaucracy, and not that I
> >>>
> >> know what is happening here, but...
> >>
> >>> I think if you strong-arm past the OpenSolaris
> >>>
> >> community bureaucracy (and
Richard L. Hamilton wrote:
>> MC wrote:
>>
>>> Not that I care for bureaucracy, and not that I
>>>
>> know what is happening here, but...
>>
>>> I think if you strong-arm past the OpenSolaris
>>>
>> community bureaucracy (and again, not saying you are,
>> because I don't kn
Jim Grisanzio wrote:
> trademark-policy-dev is a public list as well:
> http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/trademark-policy-dev
> However, there is no forum for that list, so it's confusing. I
> apologize. I set up the list but didn't do the forum gateway. We have a
> bunch of lists tha
MC wrote:
> My understanding of the OpenSolaris constitution, community, and OGB is that
> the OGB appoints members of the community ("core contributers") to have the
> power to vote on issues that concern the community.
Other way around actually - the community, specifically each
Community G
On Wed, Oct 31, 2007 at 07:59:35PM +1300, Ian Collins wrote:
> MC wrote:
> > Not that I care for bureaucracy, and not that I know what is happening
> > here, but...
> >
> > I think if you strong-arm past the OpenSolaris community bureaucracy (and
> > again, not saying you are, because I don't kn
MC wrote:
> My understanding of the OpenSolaris constitution, community, and OGB is that
> the OGB appoints members of the community ("core contributers") to have the
> power to vote on issues that concern the community.
>
> The naming issue obviously concerns some members of the community.
MC wrote:
> PS:
>
>
>>Followups set to trademark-policy-dev at opensolaris dot org .
>
>
> Web users following this discussion on jive cannot participate if the
> discussion is not on jive. So I suggest you continue it out in the open on
> the public general discuss or indiana lists/forums.
> > PS:
> >
> > > Followups set to trademark-policy-dev at
> > opensolaris dot org .
> >
> > Web users following this discussion on jive cannot
> > participate if the discussion is not on jive. So
> I
> > suggest you continue it out in the open on the
> public
> > general discuss or indiana list
> PS:
>
> > Followups set to trademark-policy-dev at
> opensolaris dot org .
>
> Web users following this discussion on jive cannot
> participate if the discussion is not on jive. So I
> suggest you continue it out in the open on the public
> general discuss or indiana lists/forums.
Thank you -
> MC wrote:
> > Not that I care for bureaucracy, and not that I
> know what is happening here, but...
> >
> > I think if you strong-arm past the OpenSolaris
> community bureaucracy (and again, not saying you are,
> because I don't know much about it), it'll be
> archived forever and referenced in
PS:
> Followups set to trademark-policy-dev at opensolaris dot org .
Web users following this discussion on jive cannot participate if the
discussion is not on jive. So I suggest you continue it out in the open on the
public general discuss or indiana lists/forums.
This message posted from
> MC wrote:
> > Not that I care for bureaucracy, and not that I
> know what is happening here, but...
> >
> > I think if you strong-arm past the OpenSolaris
> community bureaucracy (and again, not saying you are,
> because I don't know much about it), it'll be
> archived forever and referenced in
MC wrote:
> Not that I care for bureaucracy, and not that I know what is happening here,
> but...
>
> I think if you strong-arm past the OpenSolaris community bureaucracy (and
> again, not saying you are, because I don't know much about it), it'll be
> archived forever and referenced in the fut
Not that I care for bureaucracy, and not that I know what is happening here,
but...
I think if you strong-arm past the OpenSolaris community bureaucracy (and
again, not saying you are, because I don't know much about it), it'll be
archived forever and referenced in the future to show how Sun o
When Project Indiana was first conceived, it was envisioned to be a
community distribution of OpenSolaris--in other words, built by the
community and called OpenSolaris [1]. My basic observation, as someone
who came into the OpenSolaris community from the outside - even perhaps
from the competition
79 matches
Mail list logo
