[ogb-discuss] Community Simplification

[Jim Grisanzio]

John Sonnenschein wrote:
> Need? no, anyone can set up an hg repo & mail server wherever they
> want. In those terms none of the projects out there "need" to be
> associated with os.o in any way shape or form, but it's often helpful
> to be for a variety of reasons.
>
> And the purpose of this discussion Simon sparked ( don't mean to pick
> on you, you just sent the first mail ) 

Well, we (the OGB) discussed it and asked him to write it up since he 
seemed to explain it better than anyone on the call. :) It's just an 
idea to start the re-org discussion. Remember, this re-org issue started 
last year with the previous OGB, and many people feel that we really 
need to organize the community based on how things work and where we 
want to go. We are still organized too much based on structures that 
began in the pilot four years ago. Now, if it turns out that we re-org 
under the current system, that's fine, too, but I'd like to explore some 
of these alternate ideas to see if we can figure out an easier approach.


> we're talking about scrapping
> the CG system as it exists currently anyways, so there wouldn't
> presumably be a CG for which this newly instantiated project could
> attach itself to. If there was, there'd be no need for the project ->
> cg evolution path anyways, since the CG that endorses the project is
> by that act defining it's scope to include that project.
>
> On Thu, May 15, 2008 at 12:53 PM, James Carlson <james.d.carlson at sun.com> wrote:
>   
>> John Sonnenschein writes:
>>     
>>> Specifically, if we allowed projects to be formed very lightweight and
>>> completely devoid of a sponsoring community (note the use of "allow"
>>> rather than "require"), do their work, and when the scope of the
>>> project grows to such a point that it makes sense to collaborate to
>>> some degree with another project, or spin off a sub-project, have them
>>> evolve to a CG, the leaders of the project(s) being promoted to CC's
>>> of the community. ( project leads need not be CC's . I was a project
>>> lead for over a year without a core grant )
>>>       
>> History alert: this suggestion appears to be functionally identical to
>> the "incubator" CG that was proposed during the last OGB tenure.  We
>> decided against it on the theory that if someone couldn't manage to
>> scrape together a CG endorsement, then he really didn't need to do his
>> work on opensolaris.org anyway.
>>     

If this line of thinking leads to the functional equivalent of  an 
incubator system (under whatever name), that has to be a good thing. :) 
Of course, there's nothing stopping anyone right now from proposing an 
Incubator CG under the current system for the specific purpose of 
collecting disparate projects that don't fit anywhere. I can't see why a 
well formed proposal along those liens would be rejected (re-org or not).

Jim

-- 
http://blogs.sun.com/jimgris/