[advocacy-discuss] [website-discuss] Thoughts on an opensolaris.com

[Michal Bielicki]

Alan Burlison wrote:
> Glynn Foster wrote:
>
>   
>> I personally haven't thought too much about what involvement people would have 
>> with a .com site. I think apart from a few key pages, not much would change - it 
>> would be relatively static content. It would be a launch pad into allowing them 
>> to easily download and install a binary artifact, or start to associate 
>> themselves from an advocacy perspective, or then start to introduce them to the 
>> active contributing part of the community (in which, I'd suspect opensolaris.org 
>> would still have a strong part).
>>     
>
> Now I'm *really* confused:
>   
Why ? Glynns proposal looks pretty clear to me.
> If the .com site contains largely the same content as the current .org 
> site, what are the benefits of setting up a separate .com site?
>   
The .org site contains tons and tons and tons of info, that for the 
average user is a nightmare to find.  If we of course are doing this as 
aart pur l'art than fine you are right, nothing has to be fixed. If we 
want to increase the community to people that USE the system and are 
neither top developers nor 20 years experienced solaris sysadmins, than 
we have some serious stuff to fix. And GLynns proposal looks like a good 
first step to me. You don't like the two TLD's ? Why not make a nice 
suggestion how to do it in one ?
> If all the .org content is moving to the .com site, what will be left on 
> the .org site?  If the .org content isn't moving, what will be on the 
> .com site?
>   
Nobody said or wrote anything like that. Where did you find that 
intention mentioned ? I can't find it.
> What happens to the nearly 100,000 registered users on the .org site?
>   
One option is SSO which you wanted to implement anyway as far as I read 
in your documentation. And I really do not get the point here. Its like 
being a contributor in more than one community, of which we have quite 
many. Is there anything wrong in that ? Its even a good point to show 
that we and or nice project and system are able to do that.
> Who will be responsible for providing the infrastructure for the .com site?
>   
Are we at that stage already ? I thought we are at the stage of 
discussing the option of a new place which would cater for the non 
kernel developer yet it seems from your statement that that is already 
decided and we need to discuss the implementation in details already. I 
guess that if there is enough support for it, a group that will be ready 
to handle that as well as the answer to your next question will be 
found. I seem to remember a lot of tries to start something like that, 
which where killed right at the beginning by telling them 'oh you will 
never find the ressources for it'. I ten to not subscribe to an attitude 
like that. Lets spec out the idea and the requirements and than go hunt 
for resources and responsibility of particular pieces of it.
> Who will be responsible for deciding what content goes on the .com site?
>
>   
Just my 2 groszy PLN

Michal

-- 
--
Michal Bielicki
CEO
http://www.voiceworks.pl/
Voice Works Sp. z o.o. z siedziba w Warszawie przy ulicy Polnej 46/14,
00-644 Warszawa, Polska
wpisana zostala do rejestru przedsiebiorcow prowadzonego przez
Sad Rejonowy dla M.ST.Warszawy w Warszawie,
XII Wydzial Krajowego Rejestru Sadowego pod numerem KRS 0000257259.
NIP 701-00-25-117
Wysokosc kapitalu zakladowego: 51000,00 PLN