[ogb-discuss] OGB 2007/003: Communities with < 3 Core Contributors

[Dave Miner]

Stephen Hahn wrote:
> * Dave Miner <Dave.Miner at sun.com> [2007-05-31 12:36]:
>> Glynn Foster wrote:
>>> Hey,
>>>
>>> Stephen Hahn wrote:
>>>>  Accordingly, I'd like to get the Core Contributor list for the
>>>>  Approachability CG to reflect that.  An initial list would resemble
>>>>
>>>>  - Dave Miner (dminer); Install and Packaging
>>>>  - John Beck (jbeck); Networking/NWAM
>>>>  - Stephen Hahn (sch); SMF/., ./sfwnv
>>>>  - David Powell (dep); SMF/Visual Panels
>>>>  - Doug Leavitt (djl); ./[various naming projects]
>>>>
>>>>  with additions from Desktop/JDS and others likely.
>>> Is this list final? If so, I'll be happy to process it - if you want to 
>>> wait
>>> until you add some more people, that's fine too.
>>>
>> Not having been involved in any of the community reorganization 
>> discussion up to this point, I'm clearly lacking a lot of context. 
>> Personally, I'm quite doubtful that the Approachability community is 
>> going to be particularly vital and viable unless it has a substantial 
>> leadership commitment (and no, I'm not volunteering...); the last two 
>> years have given scant evidence that it really is a community.  In each 
>> of the above core contributors and projects I presently see other 
>> communities in which the work would be equally well carried on.  My own 
>> point of view is that the Approachability community has pretty well been 
>> rendered into more technology-driven pieces, following the Solaris 
>> organization that originally established it.
> 
>   I actually don't agree with this viewpoint--that internal organization
>   validates CG viability--in that there have been continuous threads
>   about absent features and inconveniences across the Community.  The
>   original community proposal
> 
>   http://mail.opensolaris.org/pipermail/opensolaris-discuss/2005-August/008588.html
> 
>   doesn't seem to have become invalid in the face of that SMI-specific
>   reorganization.
> 
>   Jim's certainly right that David Comay's recent examinations into
>   these deficits might find a home in Approachability.  If you would
>   prefer to keep Installation out or John would like NWAM to be more of
>   a Networking CG topic, no big deal--we'll just show up with a
>   collection of requirements/RFEs/complaints.  Projects that lack homes,
>   such as name service interop and the SFW consolidation, seem like
>   reasonable fits into Approachability.
> 
>   I will resist commenting on Approachability's last two years in
>   general; I would have like to have been more involved, but I had to
>   spend time on something else...
> 

Clearly, my viewpoint didn't come across so well.  I don't believe that
Sun's internal organization has much to do with community viability;
otherwise the networking community wouldn't have been a reasonably
thriving place for the last two years.  My observation here was merely 
that there isn't even an organization which would seem dedicated to 
making it more active, successful, viable.

I agree the problems the community was originally intended to solve 
remain as real now as they were two years ago.  But I don't see that the 
community has gelled, or is likely to gel, to where it actually 
accomplishes any of the things proposed - instead projects have taken 
root in technology-oriented communities (or, in other cases, meandered 
along as directionless conversations on opensolaris-discuss without 
becoming projects).  What I don't see is anyone willing to make it their 
mission to direct those things to this community and make it a viable 
entity in attacking those problems.

Infusing a substantial mass such as SFW or some of the modernization
activities into the community's activities perhaps will provide gravity
that it has so far lacked, but otherwise it seems likely to remain a 
"rather vague term" (to quote the original proposal ;-) which will 
understandably continue to fail to accrete.  Perhaps a hopeful viewpoint 
on this and having the community continue is warranted.  If that's the 
consensus, I'll certainly support it to the extent I can, but I fear my 
current commitments will keep my efforts limited and thus this community 
will remain as adrift as it has been.

Dave