[ogb-discuss] Power Management Community Proposal

[Stephen Hahn]

* Randy Fishel <randy.fishel at sun.com> [2008-05-14 21:06]:
> On Wed, 14 May 2008, Alan Coopersmith wrote:
> > Randy Fishel wrote:
> > > I would like to propose starting a Power Management Community.
> > > The intention is to coalesce fragmented power management
> > > discussion and work into a single community.
> > > 
> > >   The proposal can be found here:
> > > 
> > > http://www.genunix.org/wiki/index.php/Power_Management_Community_Group_Proposal_2008
> > 
> > The OGB discussed this Monday, and had 3 questions before approving:
> > 
> > 1) Why a community instead of a project?
> 
> Primarily, because it would never be a single project.  There is a 
> larger desire to coordinate power management work, instead of having 
> bits (possibly conflicting bits) scattered all over the place.  And it 
> is also difficult for developers/users to know where they should go to 
> address their specific problems or needs.  The community could well be 
> considered an umbrella, or meta-project, as one goal is the creation 
> of projects to solve specific needs, but that grouping doesn't exist 
> (yet).  

  One of the problems I see with this proposal (and the Emancipation CG
  proposal, for that matter) is that the larger scale tradeoff
  discussions aren't going to happen in the proposed CG, but in the CGs
  that hold the responsibilities for the main source tree for each
  proposed change.  That is, I'm sure that Power Management participants
  might all agree that a particular change is great for Power
  Management, but that a person more interested in performance or
  availability might disagree.  That discussion happens within ON.

  (A project can have multiple repositories and multiple mailing lists,
  so I'm not sure why one would need a meta-project or a CG to coordinate
  multiple efforts.)

  My question for a new CG proposal is always going to be "why does this
  group of people need distinct representation?"  (And it would be nice
  to apply this question with "still need" to some of the inactive CGs
  as well.)  I guess I don't see the need here:  Desktop, Laptop,
  Appliance, and ON all seem to be CGs providing overlapping
  representation for this technical area.

  - Stephen

-- 
sch at sun.com  http://blogs.sun.com/sch/