On Sat, May 10, 2008 at 4:09 PM, Shawn Walker <swalker@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Sat, May 10, 2008 at 4:05 PM, John Sonnenschein
> <johnsonnenschein@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> So, what are everyone's thoughts on promoting the project to a
>> community ( a community whose goal is to see to it's own destruction,
>> but a community none the less ) ?
> I do agree that they should be separate projects.
> However, I'm not sure I agree that promotion to a CG is the best for
> these projects.
> For example, libc, etc. belong as a project sponsored by the ON
> Community Group. The same would go for any component currently part of
> the ON Community's work.
Well, a project can be sponsored by greater than one community group.
libc_i18n applies to Emancipation, ON, and
I see this as more a collaboration point for determining requirements
& assistance ( for example, helping people through ARC ) for people
who aren't particularly interested in the code they're working on in
and of itself ( I have no real affinity to writing i18n support code
), but rather the end goal of eliminating closed-source from the core
OS ( defined however you like.. WOS, OpenSolaris Binary Distro,
> In other words, I think these projects better fit within the existing
> well-scoped Community Groups that we have that relate to what the
> project is "emancipating."
> My reasoning behind this is that it is best to work closely with the
> existing CG that sponsors the projects that already maintain the items
> being "emancipated."
Well, if they were already projects on os.o they wouldn't need to be
emancipated, but more to the point the people who work on the code
behind the firewall are prohibited from working on the emancipated
stuff, so being attached to their group is at best of very little use.
PGP Public Key 0x437AF1A1
Available on hkp://pgp.mit.edu
ogb-discuss mailing list