[ogb-discuss] Power Management Community Proposal

[Stephen Hahn]

* Eric Saxe <Eric.Saxe at Sun.COM> [2008-05-15 20:11]:
> Stephen Hahn wrote:
> >  You keep using the term "forum".  You can't mean a mailing list and
> >  web pages, because projects have those facilities as well.
> I mean forum in a "place to bring folks who aren't working together (and 
> in the open) together" sense. Code and repositories could be one 
> organizing principle. Shared technical interests (e.g. SIGs) could be 
> another. In our case, I could see how a PM community would be a place 
> where higher level architectural issues could be worked...and the 
> individual projects would work towards implementing that larger 
> architecture. Within Sun, a power management forum already exists to 
> bring together and facilitate alignment between PM project teams across 
> the company. Such a forum on OS.o could bring about similar goodness 
> between those same participants, and the broader community.
 
  It's probably my shortcomings, but I see no need for the participants
  of that forum to require a vote in community-wide decision making, nor
  do I see how a well advertised project fails to meet those needs.

> >  I can only
> >  assume you are really hoping for "exclusive or sole forum".  Of
> >  course, a CG doesn't get you exclusivity--by design, since we've
> >  already seen that at times, due to lack of interest, CGs die out, and
> >  their goals get partially assumed by individuals in other CGs.
> >  
> I'm not really sure what you mean here. I think it's appropriate that 
> the community have a purpose (or charter) and some goals, and those 
> would be defined by the contributers making up the community, which are 
> those doing the work. I don't think Randy's proposal means to create an 
> exclusive club...quite the opposite. The purpose is to facilitate 
> bringing various disparate efforts out in the open, facilitate 
> collaboration and hopefully some alignment. As the community grows I 
> fully expect that the goals would evolve too.
 
  That's a project.  See below.

> >  I think that, if exclusivity or highlighting is what you're after,
> >  then we should wait for the Board to come up with some kind of special
> >  interest group tag for projects or mail aliases.  I'm a strong -1 on
> >  yet another source of Core Contributor grants for work that will end
> >  up in ON.  I'm also a -1 on an Emancipation CG for these reasons (as
> >  well as not understanding how to evaluate contributions to
> >  Emancipation work that don't ever end up in a mainline source tree or
> >  a distro)
> >  
> I get the sense that in discussing this proposal, you are really talking 
> about things outside the scope of this proposal. I understand that there 
> is an evolving discussion around community simplification, and that you 
> are considering this proposal in the context of that evolving 
> discussion, which is fine, but I don't think Randy or myself are after 
> anything nefarious here. :)

  Not really.  A CG asks, ultimately, for (a) the right to issue voting
  rights for its identified core contributors and (b) the right to have
  disputes with another CG heard by the Board.  I don't see any special
  need for this effort to have those things; none of the arguments in
  the initial proposal have done so either.

  I would prefer to see the Board make progress here, but that doesn't
  mean that any proposal should necessarily be approved in the interim.
 
  - Stephen

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