On Sun, 2011-04-10 at 08:56 +1200, Ian Collins wrote:
> On 04/10/11 05:41 AM, Chris Forgeron wrote:
> > I see your point, but you also have to understand that sometimes too many
> > helpers/opinions are a bad thing. There is a set "core" of ZFS developers
> > who make a lot of this move forward, and they are the key right now. The
> > rest of us will just muddy the waters with conflicting/divergent opinions
> > on direction and goals.
> >
> In the real world we would be called customers, you know the people who
> actually use the product.
Right. And in the real world, customers are generally not involved with
architectural discussions of products. Their input is collected and
feed into the process, but they don't get to sit at the whiteboard with
developers as the work on the designs.
>
> Developers, no matter how good, shouldn't work in a vacuum.
Agreed, and we don't.
>
> If you want to see a good example of how things should be done in the
> open, follow the caiman-discuss list.
Caiman-discuss may be an excellent example of a model that can work, but
it might not be the best model for ZFS. There are many more contentious
issues, and more contentious personalities, and other considerations
that I don't want to get into.
Ultimately, our model is like an IEEE working group. The members have
decided to run this list in this fashion, without any significant
dissension.
Of course, if you don't like this, and want to start your own group, I
encourage you to do so.
I'll also point at zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org, which is monitored by a
number of the members of this cabal. That's a great way to give
feedback.
- Garrett
_______________________________________________
zfs-discuss mailing list
zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org
http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
