[ogb-discuss] LDoms Community Proposal redux ...

[Brandorr]

On 8/8/07, Roy T. Fielding <fielding at gbiv.com> wrote:
>
> On Aug 8, 2007, at 11:38 AM, Brandorr wrote:
>
> > If you were to reorganize the communities, I have sketched out how
> > it might look. (Fewer, but larger CGs.)
> >
> > http://www.genunix.org/wiki/index.php/OpenSolaris_CGs
> >
> > Basically the whole goal is to push more of the governance into the
> > trenches, and at the same time require fewer people be assigned to
> > managing CGs.
>
> That isn't self-governance.  What you want is a web page that directs
> people to communities by association (tags).  Forcing groups into
> hierarchies just introduces the need for pointy-haired bosses to
> argue about which bureau should be allowed to do what project,
> and avoidance of that situation is one of the main reasons to do
> open source development in the first place.
>


I don't see how my proposal adds more PHB-ness. ;)

Actually my proposal would reduce "management's involvement".  Requests
wouldn't have to keep coming to the OGB, as the more general CGs would be
more broadly scoped, and new projects groups wouldn't keep coming to
OGB-discuss for approval, where there is a higher bar to cross. (At least
I'd hope the OGB is more careful in CG instantiation than project
instantiation).

I also think you misunderstood what I was saying. Currently if you want to
start a project, you just need a CG to endorse the project. If you want to
start a CG you need full board approval from the OGB. I am advocating
removing this useless overhead from the OGB. (At the CG level, you only need
three contributors to approve your project request).

Currently someone comes in with there project, sees all these micro
communities, and figures we need to start a micro community as well. The
thought is with fewer and broader CGs, most projects groups will  have
higher chance of having a CG that alligns with their goals.)

I also think that the size or number of the pieces of a given set of
technologies should not makes them get their own CG. As an example, the LDOM
working group might have 5 different projects in the Virtualization
community.

Another piece I have been advocating is an incubator community, that would
be the fastest way for new projects and groups to take advantage of
Opensolaris.org resources. (Get the code out!!) Although the need for this
CG will be less urgent, if we had broader scoped CGs. (BTW - The current
constitution labels the OGB-CG as the last resource CG for project
instantiation.)

As an example of what I am talking about, with the plethora of protocols and
working groups that the IAB resides over, how does the IETF limit themselves
to only eight areas, that all working groups fall into?

Applications Area<http://www.ietf.org/html.charters/wg-dir.html#Applications%20Area>
General Area <http://www.ietf.org/html.charters/wg-dir.html#General%20Area>
Internet Area<http://www.ietf.org/html.charters/wg-dir.html#Internet%20Area>
Operations and Management
Area<http://www.ietf.org/html.charters/wg-dir.html#Operations%20and%20Management%20Area>
Real-time Applications and Infrastructure
Area<http://www.ietf.org/html.charters/wg-dir.html#Real-time%20Applications%20and%20Infrastructure%20Area>
Routing Area <http://www.ietf.org/html.charters/wg-dir.html#Routing%20Area>
Security Area<http://www.ietf.org/html.charters/wg-dir.html#Security%20Area>
Transport Area<http://www.ietf.org/html.charters/wg-dir.html#Transport%20Area>
-Brian
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mail.opensolaris.org/pipermail/ogb-discuss/attachments/20070808/78ad1773/attachment.html