[cab-discuss] Community Organization Revisited

[Ben Rockwood]

Glynn Foster wrote:

> Hi,
>
> Ben Rockwood wrote:
>
>> Based on prior discussion it seems clear that pruning or 
>> re-organizing is a non-trivial thing and any efforts to do so 
>> shouldn't be based on goverance, but on the overall needs of the 
>> project, which can change over time.
>
>
> Yeah, I think we entirely became far too structured before we really 
> thought out the consequences. I don't think re-organizing is too big a 
> deal - however, I do think we'd absolutely have to get it 100% correct 
> if we were to do this.
>
>> * Nevada Development
>
>
> I disagree with this one. Nevada currently doesn't reflect a community 
> that will be around while the OpenSolaris project is alive - it's a 
> project name for Solaris 11, of limited timeframe.
>
>> * Tools
>
>
> Why Tools and not others? I'm not sure I grok this one.
>
>> I would move that the communities marked with a * be deemed "Core 
>> Communities", which is to say: Communities that form the eyes, ears, 
>> and limbs of the project as a whole.  The major organs of 
>> OpenSolaris, if you will.
>
>
> I'd probably just have the CAB in that category - others are just 
> teams, projects or processes.

I put Nevada on the "core list" because its the central focus of the 
project, OpenSolaris's core.  Obviously a better more perminant name for 
that community is actually needed, but untill such time as a new 
community name is chosen or migrated to, Nevada would be the one.

I put Tools on the list because the SCM and tools that provide access to 
the stuff we're building together as a community is central to the 
operation of OpenSolaris.

Again, these communities are deemed "Core" in my view because if I were 
on the OGB I'd expect that these communities would be expected to live 
up to a higher standard than the others.  If the Xen community is idle 
for 3 months its not a problem, but if ARC, Tools, Marketing, or OGB go 
limp we have a seriuos problem.... imho.

benr.