[ogb-discuss] [appliances-discuss] Status of the Appliances Community

[Mark Martin]

John Plocher wrote:
> JimG wrote:
>   
>> Personally, I think Project status is a far more desirable state than being
>> a Community Group.
>>     
>
> It sounds like there are good reasons for an appliances <something> to
> continue to exist in some form.
>
> >From the discussion, it sounds like this group's needs are:
>
>     High:         Email/forum channel for announcements
>     Medium:   Web page(s) for collection of information
>                      (but who maintains?)
>     Low:         os.o community governance and oversight
>     Low:         Active "on os.o" development projects
>     Very Low: Core Contributors
>
> I agree with Jim -  this sounds like a project with mailing lists and
> no source repository (for now).  Until (if?, when?) we get the new
> constitution in place, it could be hosted by the OGB as an at-large
> project if a better home isn't found first.
>
> The one thing I wouldn't do is wipe it out completely, since there is
> activity and interest in the subject matter...
>   
Coincidently, Darren MacKay's very recent announcement about another 
release of his embedded project 
(http://mail.opensolaris.org/pipermail/appliances-discuss/2009-September/000453.html 
-- kudos!) would suggest that your last few points may need a second 
glance.  I see he's put his work on sourceforge.net -- is there a desire 
to bring that work onto OSo resources?  I'll spare sharing my own 
opinion on the wisdom of doing that, but I do want to point out that 
there is actually work going on here beside discussion.    I do agree 
the existing list should stay and web pages should stick around -- 
although that's a can of worms about maintenance I'll also spare 
spouting about.

To my mind, "Emerging platforms" is probably a better foster home for 
this-as-a-project than "Installation".  The former group's goal, to my 
mind, is about getting OpenSolaris running on platforms that are largely 
being currently ignored by a particular vendor (e.g. other 
architectures, other deployment footprints, etc).  The later seems more 
narrowly focused on creating a (home-grown) delivery mechanism and 
vehicle for a commercial OpenSolaris(tm).  I see more congruent energy, 
passion, goals, and work with the "emerging platform" group than with 
the "installation" group.  As the obligatory grain of salt, I offer that 
I'm not officially anything more than a contributor in any of those 
entities -- that is just my opinion, which could be wrong.  I do hope, 
however, that work like Darren's project continue to gain momentum as I 
see them as critical to any success we might have with the various 
porting projects.