[ogb-discuss] Logical Domains (LDoms) Community Proposal

[Eric Boutilier]

I'd go for merging BrandZ, Xen, and LDoms into a single Virtualization
Community Group (CG). I'd be surprised if there were any objections
from those other two CGs to doing this ... or from the OGB of course.

Zones, on the other hand, is different in that that it's a.) *Highly*
active (i.e. message traffic) b.) A longstanding OpenSolaris Community
c.) A technology that's been shipping in Solaris for a long time. Any
CG that meets all three of those characteristics should be left to
stand as a viable CG in its own right -- IMO.

Frank, Honglin -- Maybe the thing to do is get together (e-mail chat?)
with BrandZ and Xen guys, Nils Nieuwejaar and John Levon (copied), plus
Jim Grisanzio (also copied).

Jim can provide guidance, both in general, and in specific from his
recent very successful merging of several CGs into one (Advocacy
Community Group). Jim's really blazed the trail logistically too, so
we now know what it takes in that area, and I'll be glad to help drive
that part too. So all you guys from LDoms, Xen, and BrandZ need to do
is agree, and do the proposal write-up.

Eric

P.S. I personally would love to see a single, consolidated, vibrant
Virtualization Community Group.


On Thu, 19 Jul 2007, Keith M Wesolowski wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 19, 2007 at 12:45:26PM -0700, John Falkenthal wrote:
>
>> I agree that Ldoms would fit well as a project in a virtualization
>> community.   If we are ever going to pull together a "story" for Sun
>> having a unified virtualization strategy its got to start in places like
>> this.    One problem is that I didn't see any real commitment of
>> creating such a community and reorganizing the projects under it.
>> Steven, is this going to happen and if so when?
>
> Well, my question isn't about helping Sun come up with messaging or
> strategy - I certainly want that to happen, but this isn't the place
> for it.  In many ways, of course, the same inputs go into both how an
> engineering community governs itself and how the technical output of
> that community is marketed to customers, but we're really only
> concerned with the former here.
>
> The kind of thing I'm trying to understand here is whether the
> principals in the extant and proposed Community Groups believe that
>
>  (a) they're solving the same basic problems using similar tools, and
>  can benefit from working together, managing their projects together,
>  integrating their work more closely, and thinking about the problems
>  together, or
>
>  (b) they believe they're taking completely different directions and
>  competing with one another or even addressing separate and
>  non-overlapping problem spaces, or would be otherwise unable to
>  reach consensus on anything important.
>
> The lesson we learned from our initial attempt at combining Groups is
> that logical boundaries are often the wrong ones; the Core
> Contributors' desire for independence or cooperation is often the key
> determinant.  At the same time, I'm loathe to go creating hundreds of
> Community Groups simply because people who could and should be working
> together and creating more integrated and coherent solutions can't or
> won't be bothered to look beyond the charters given to their team by
> their employer.
>
> I've yet to see anything here that leads me to either conclusion on
> this particular issue.  My personal bias is to deny formation of new
> Groups when I have doubts.  Other board members may well feel
> differently, of course.
>
> -- 
> Keith M Wesolowski		"Sir, we're surrounded!"
> FishWorks			"Excellent; we can attack in any direction!"
> _______________________________________________
> ogb-discuss mailing list
> ogb-discuss at opensolaris.org
> http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/ogb-discuss
>