[ogb-discuss] [ug-nycosug] OpenSolaris.org: Do we build a distro? Let your voice be heard. (Today by noon) OGB concall info enclosed.
Isaac
isaac at sun.com
Fri Feb 8 13:26:09 PST 2008
Yikes!
This was meant to be seen earlier, and because Brian sent it from a
non-subscribed email box (thus (requiring moderator's approval) AND
me being out of town, I did not get a chance to approve this note to
the list until returning last night....
VERY SORRY Brian.
Isaac
On Feb 7, 2008, at 6:04 AM, Brian Gupta <brian.gupta at gmail.com> wrote:
> Community,
>
> First let me apologize. I have been loath to write to a captive
> community. Please address all responses to me or to
> ogb-discuss at opensolaris.org rather than risking further traffic to a
> widely distributed list. (I only address the community because I feel
> that it is a topic of utmost importance to our identity as an open
> community.)
>
> Shawn Walker has a proposal before the OGB that will be voted on later
> today. His proposal basically is asking to create a distro building
> community. Supposedly it is agnostic, but in reality it seems to be a
> precursor to an official "Indiana Project == OpenSolaris Binary
> distro" move by our benevolent sponsors.
>
> Many of us signed on to be developers and advocates to something quite
> different than what the leaders of the "Disto CG" believe. The distro
> CG core sponsors want to make an Official OpenSolaris distro, and set
> preconditions on what it means to be an OpenSolaris Disto. (As a
> member of the real distro building community I resent the arrogance of
> this). In particular the Indiana team has expressed that only binaries
> built by the Indiana team can be used to make an "OpenSolaris distro".
> This I disagree with, as anyone should be able to take the OpenSolaris
> source code and make an "OpenSolaris distro". (I believe that
> diversity is going to be our future strength.)
>
> I also feel that Keith's denigration of the OpenSolaris code base to a
> name such as Cosnix is misguided. Our code base is called OpenSolaris.
> "OpenSolaris" refers to our code base and our community. (And nothing
> else). (Frankly, I don't know what is happening in the secret
> negotiations between the OGB and Sun regarding the OpenSolaris
> trademark, but my heart fears for the worst. IE: Sun no longer feels
> it is in their business interests to have OpenSolaris simply refer to
> a code base, but rather a brand for a Sun product, which we now know
> as Project Indiana.)
>
> This issue may seem to be a simple thing but it is really a proxy for
> our identity. Is OpenSolaris.org a diverse community, or do we want to
> create a distro and build a singular community around it? (BTW - I
> have strong technical disagreements with the approach the Indiana team
> has approached packaging, which I hope explains my trespassing of your
> inbox).
>
> Please subscribe to ogb-discuss at opensolaris.org and make your opinions
> known regarding both this proposal and whether the Indiana team will
> determine our fate. This is important on both fronts, as the OGB needs
> to know how to represent the community. To subscribe please just send
> an email to ogb-discuss-subscribe at opensolaris.com and follow the
> instructions in the email response. Please make your opinions known
> even if you disagree with me, as if left unresolved this will continue
> to be a contentious issue for the community. (Remember make your
> opinions known on ogb-discuss. They need to know how to represent us.)
>
> Although writing to ogb-discuss at opensolaris.org prior to the meeting
> today, is probably the best way to make your voice heard, you can also
> try calling in on the following numbers at 12 PST (3PM EST):
>
> Participant Passcode: 6266208
>
> Country Toll Numbers Freephone/
> Toll Free
> ===
> ===
> ===
> =====================================================================
> CANADA 866-675-9751
> NETHERLANDS 31-20-717-6836
> 0800-343-4332
> NEW ZEALAND 64-9-970-4608
> 0800-441-636
> USA 1-210-795-0500
> 1-877-807-6997
>
> Thank you,
> Brian Gupta
> Solaris Advocate
> OpenSolaris.org Member
>
> On Jan 22, 2008 5:38 PM, Keith M Wesolowski
> <Keith.Wesolowski at sun.com> wrote:
>> On Tue, Jan 22, 2008 at 11:46:38AM -0500, James Carlson wrote:
>>
>>>> One community group in charge of all distributions seems too broad.
>>>> For making the decisions about the distro itself, like each
>>>> distro's
>>>> release plans, it would seem a separate community group is
>>>> necessary
>>>> - for example, why would Ian have a vote on Schillix release
>>>> plans or
>>>> Joerg a vote on Indiana release plans?
>>>
>>> Actually, I think we'll need to get to that point, at least in some
>>> cases.
>>>
>>> It seems impractical to me to say that the release binding and
>>> schedule in use for something as big as ON is just "whatever." It
>>> needs to be something that the consumers of ON (that is, the
>>> distributors) agree on. If they can't all agree on one setting,
>>> then
>>> they'll need to fork ON into separate streams to contain various
>>> kinds
>>> of content, because there will inevitably be world-changing features
>>> (such as SMF in the past) that can integrate into a release of one
>>> binding, but not another.
>>
>> The way I've started thinking about this problem (and Mr. Walker's
>> proposal) is to define some nomenclature. Whether you like my names
>> is not really important; the fact is that these things exist, or
>> could
>> exist. Nothing here should be taken to be a grant of trademark
>> rights
>> or a statement of SMI's position, etc.
>>
>> Consix - The consolidations that exist currently, whether or not
>> represented by a functioning Community Group. This is the
>> freely-distributable portion of the content that makes up
>> Solaris Express. Consix is not itself a product but is
>> available for others to consume.
>>
>> Consix Community - The remains of the organisation originally formed
>> as the OpenSolaris Community. This organisation is
>> interested in the maintenance and development of Consix.
>>
>> OpenSolaris - A product of Sun Microsystems, Inc. (SMI). This
>> product
>> may or may not be based in whole or in part on Consix (see
>> below).
>>
>> OpenSolaris Community - A community of users and distribution
>> developers interested in OpenSolaris, the OpenSolaris
>> Distribution Constructor, and the OpenSolaris workalikes
>> created thereby.
>>
>> OpenSolaris Distribution Constructor - A product of SMI that enables
>> third parties to create OpenSolaris workalikes in ways that
>> allow them certain uses of SMI's trademarks.
>>
>> Note that the OpenSolaris Community and the Consix Community could in
>> theory be parts of the same organisation; this isn't meant to suggest
>> a particular political structure but rather a description of roles.
>>
>> The first question we need to answer is whether OpenSolaris consumes
>> Consix. There are (at least) two possible models here. In one model
>> - let us call it Alpha - Consix continues to exist as a separate
>> collection of technology independently developed by the Consix
>> Community, and the OpenSolaris Community takes snapshots or releases
>> of Consix from time to time to develop into its distribution
>> products.
>> In the second model - Beta - Consix, if it exists at all, is entirely
>> separate from OpenSolaris. Instead, the OpenSolaris Community forks
>> from Consix at inception and never looks back.
>>
>> Model Alpha does indeed require some mechanism by which consumers of
>> Consix - prominent but not exclusive among them the OpenSolaris
>> Community - must agree on release bindings and schedules. This
>> suggests a need for some arbitration or steering committee within the
>> Consix Community. The $64,000 question, of course, is how it would
>> be
>> structured.
>>
>> Model Beta does not really have this same problem, because the
>> OpenSolaris Community owns its entire source base. Workalike
>> distributions are by design and intent subordinate to OpenSolaris
>> itself, so the people responsible for managing OpenSolaris's
>> repositories have all necessary authority to make decisions about
>> releases and bindings. In this model, the Consix Community still
>> needs some way to determine when to change utsname and what it means,
>> but I think the Consix Community would have less difficulty with
>> contributor-driven decision-making if the OpenSolaris folks can go
>> their own way.
>>
>> It's not clear to me whether this proposal is intended to be a part
>> of
>> the Consix Community or the OpenSolaris Community (that is, which
>> model is assumed). Nor is it clear that it fits well into either.
>>
>> The Consix Community has adopted a set of "Community Groups" that are
>> in effect SIGs. They are narrow in scope and rarely encompass
>> conflicting interests. Mr. Walker's proposal does not adhere to that
>> model at all. There is no doubt that something has to replace the
>> historic W-teams, but I do not see why a Distribution CG would do
>> this
>> more effectively than Mr. Coopersmith's previous proposals or some
>> other mechanism. And I'm troubled by your suggestion that the right
>> of suffrage derives primarily from consumption rather than
>> production;
>> that's not an idea found anywhere in the Consix Constitution. Still,
>> as the OpenSolaris CG rather than the Distribution CG, a proposal not
>> too unlike this one might fit neatly into the Consix Community: one
>> may note that a single distribution appears to fit very neatly into
>> the definition of a Community Group as described by the Consix
>> Constitution and as envisioned by Mr. Fielding.
>>
>> If this is intended for the OpenSolaris Community, I think it needs
>> to
>> be considered in light of whatever kind of governance structure that
>> community will want. If they intend to inherit as if by fork(2) the
>> OpenSolaris Constitution, they need to think about how your plan fits
>> in. Frankly, it seems to me that what you are proposing is not a new
>> Consix CG but rather the OpenSolaris Community itself, under which
>> there might exist political subdivisions for the various OpenSolaris
>> workalikes but de facto absolute control of shared technical strategy
>> lies with the trademark holder.
>>
>> Inherent in my thoughts here is the idea that Consix and OpenSolaris
>> aren't really compatible ideologically. Maybe I'm wrong about that.
>>
>> --
>> 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
>>
>
>
>
> --
> - Brian Gupta
>
> http://opensolaris.org/os/project/nycosug/
> _______________________________________________
> ug-nycosug mailing list
> ug-nycosug at opensolaris.org
> http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/ug-nycosug
More information about the ogb-discuss
mailing list