[ogb-discuss] Ben's Agenda Items for Jan 23rd, 2008

[Octave Orgeron]

Hi Everyone,

This does bring up some interesting topics. While I agree it's important for Sun to protect it's IP during the development phase, the side effect is that there can be a disconnect when a new technology is released into the OpenSolaris community. Indiana for example was a huge undertaking and caused a lot of head *turning*. It would appear to me that this kind of a situation causes conflict because the community was not involved in the decisions or the design. So how can we fix this process and prevent such *surprises*? 

Well, I think the best place to start is to have the community drive the roadmap for OpenSolaris. This means that we as a community come together, discuss the design choices, and make the decisions. Sun should be involved, since they have a vested interest in maintaining compatibility, which I believe is critical for the success of both Solaris and any OpenSolaris distros. However, the driving force should be the community. So the question is how do we protect Sun's IP during the design phase of a new technology or feature, before it's open sourced? And, how do we as a community ensure that such releases do not negatively affect current community efforts? I think the answer is that we need the following:

1. Define what makes components are part of OpenSolaris. This could be an academic exercise in looking at what's already open sourced and what will not be open sourced (CDE for example).
2. Define an OpenSolaris standard that all distros must comply to for OpenSolaris branding or to have the right to say "Based on OpenSolaris" or "OpenSolaris Compliant".
3. Define a Roadmap for OpenSolaris. This would involve figuring out when projects will be reviewed and integrated. This also means that Sun would have to atleast present what the impact of a new technology would be and outline any proposed changes to the OpenSolaris standard. The community would then have a say in if it makes sense or not.
4. Have an open process for reviewing and approving items for integration. This means that Sun and the community come together and make decisions based on an agreed foundation of principles.

This might be idealistic, but I think it could move things in the right direction.
 
*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*
Octave J. Orgeron
Solaris Systems Engineer
http://www.opensolaris.org/os/community/sysadmin/
http://unixconsole.blogspot.com
unixconsole at yahoo.com
*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*

----- Original Message ----
From: MC <rac at eastlink.ca>
To: ogb-discuss at opensolaris.org
Sent: Saturday, January 26, 2008 3:28:25 PM
Subject: Re: [ogb-discuss] Ben's Agenda Items for Jan 23rd, 2008


> 
To 
expect 
Bill 
to 
make
> 
public  
> 
statements 
is 
to 
deny 
the 
OGB 
that
> 
constitutionally-mandated 
role,  
> 
and 
to 
expect 
Bill 
to 
conduct 
a 
public 
discussion
> 
about 
Sun's  
> 
business 
with 
all 
and 
sundry 
is 
an 
unreasonable
> 
expectation 
in 
my 
view.

I 
can 
understand 
that 
one.  
Though 
there 
is 
something 
fishy 
about 
Sun 
employees 
on 
the 
OGB 
talking 
privately 
to 
Sun 
employees 
representing 
Sun 
that 
I 
can't 
easily 
expound 
upon.


Glynn 
wrote:
> 
I 
think 
it's 
ok 
that 
the 
new 
OGB 
members 
will 
get 
to 
see 
the 
old 
archives 
-
> 
they'll 
be 
under 
the 
same 
gentleman's 
agreement 
as 
the 
previous 
OGB.

It 
is 
ironic 
to 
me 
that 
you 
use 
the 
term 
"gentleman's 
agreement", 
because 
private 
discussion 
between 
any 
governors 
can 
quickly 
turn 
into 
cliquish 
gossip 
about 
the 
plebes; 
a 
gentleman's 
club 
if 
you 
will.


Casper 
wrote:
> 
There 
are 
lots 
of 
things 
we 
cannot 
discuss 
in 
the 
open; 
any 
discussion
about 
persons 
for 
one.

That 
makes 
me 
scratch 
my 
head.  
The 
OGB 
needs 
to 
talk 
in 
private 
about 
people?  
Who?  
Why?  
That 
leads 
me 
to 
this:

Rich 
Teer 
wrote:
> 
Private 
and 
sensitive 
issues 
were 
exactly 
why 
the 
ogb-private
> 
list 
was 
set 
up. 
The 
intent 
is 
that 
all 
discussion 
that 
aren't 
of
> 
a 
sensitive 
nature 
take 
place 
on 
ogb-discuss.

For 
a 
private 
list 
to 
remain, 
I 
suggest 
you 
guys 
rigorously 
define 
what 
is 
allowed 
and 
not 
allowed 
on 
the 
private 
OGB 
list.  
It 
should 
be 
kept 
to 
a 
minimum, 
and 
"sensitive 
nature" 
should 
be 
defined 
for 
the 
public 
to 
see.  

And 
to 
enforce 
such 
a 
rule, 
I 
imagine 
another 
rule 
would 
need 
to 
be 
in 
place 
allowing 
an 
OGB 
member 
to 
take 
some 
action 
on 
the 
allegedly 
rule-breaking 
comment.

I 
don't 
like 
politicking 
and 
I 
don't 
like 
political 
overhead.  
But 
if 
you 
are 
going 
to 
have 
these 
things 
anyway, 
I 
do 
think 
that 
systems 
need 
to 
be 
in 
place 
to 
maintain 
fairness, 
prevent 
corruption, 
and 
prevent 
the 
contradiction 
that 
is 
closed 
governance 
in 
an 
open 
community.  

MC
--
This 
message 
was 
posted 
from 
opensolaris.org
_______________________________________________
ogb-discuss 
mailing 
list
ogb-discuss at opensolaris.org
http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/ogb-discuss





      ____________________________________________________________________________________
Looking for last minute shopping deals?  
Find them fast with Yahoo! Search.  http://tools.search.yahoo.com/newsearch/category.php?category=shopping