Re: Priorities results

On Thu, Mar 15, 2007 at 09:06:43AM +1300, Glynn Foster
wrote:

>  - Despite having 3 and 5 available elsewhere, it seems
people
>    want an official resource

Taken as a whole, these results suggest that what people are
really
looking for is an integrated end-to-end open workflow.  That
is, for
tools that aid rather than hinder and obscure.  It's not
surprising
that code review would be a part of that.

>  - Tonic folks, ignore 2-5 for now, and concentrate on
1. If I
>    understand the numbers correctly, it's by far and
away our
>    largest priority

I'm a bit confused by your reaction here, as I thought this
was
supposed to be about the OGB's priorities.  While the Tonic
team has
accomplished much and continues to work hard, it will no
longer be
directly responsible for any of these tasks.  We cannot wait
10 years
for the underresourced Tonic team to implement these
features one by
one, dragging Sun tools into the open as funding permits. 
Instead, we
should conduct a process similar to that being used to
evaluate and
implement SCM for each missing piece of functionality.  If
the Tonic
team can commit resources in a particular area, it's welcome
and
encouraged to submit a proposal.  If not, someone else will
need to
step in.  Sun management must decide, and express through
the
allocation of resources, how much importance it attaches to
the
continued use of each of the existing closed tools.

>  - Can anything be said about the voter distribution
based on
>    the polls? I'm surprised RTI is as high as it is.

As am I, but only because the consolidations would lack the
ability to
enforce integration requirements under the proposed
constitution
without CG restructuring.

>  - Also vaguely indicates that no on seems keen to
actually
>    step up to the plate and be part of a wider
infrastructure
>    team to work on this stuff

That conclusion is valid only if one assumes that the Tonic
team is
responsible for delivering the goods.  It isn't.

-- 
Keith M Wesolowski		"Sir, we're surrounded!" 
FishWorks			"Excellent; we can attack in any
direction!" 
_______________________________________________
cab-discuss mailing list
cab-discussopensolaris.org

Keith M Wesolowski wrote:
>>  - Tonic folks, ignore 2-5 for now, and concentrate
on 1. If I
>>    understand the numbers correctly, it's by far
and away our
>>    largest priority
> 
> I'm a bit confused by your reaction here, as I thought
this was
> supposed to be about the OGB's priorities.  While the
Tonic team has
> accomplished much and continues to work hard, it will
no longer be
> directly responsible for any of these tasks.  We cannot
wait 10 years
> for the underresourced Tonic team to implement these
features one by
> one, dragging Sun tools into the open as funding
permits.  Instead, we
> should conduct a process similar to that being used to
evaluate and
> implement SCM for each missing piece of functionality. 
If the Tonic
> team can commit resources in a particular area, it's
welcome and
> encouraged to submit a proposal.  If not, someone else
will need to
> step in.  Sun management must decide, and express
through the
> allocation of resources, how much importance it
attaches to the
> continued use of each of the existing closed tools.

Hrm, that was on the assumption that the current web team ==
Tonic, which I know
it technically isn't. But yeah, on reading back through it,
it's a pretty
foolish comment to make. I guess what I'm saying is that we
now have to look
very seriously at whether it will be possible to release our
current tool chain
(including bugster). If that's not looking likely [1], then
you're absolutely
right, we shouldn't hold off for that to magically happen
and continue on
working and evaluating alternatives.


Glynn

[1] And really, I'm disappointed at the severe lack of
information that has
    been floated on the public mailing lists about it. I
*know* (or heard
    rumours) there is work/discussion going on behind the
scenes, but I don't
    know the status. It's never going to be a community
project to replace
    the tools if all the information about them is currently
behind a wall.
_______________________________________________
cab-discuss mailing list
cab-discussopensolaris.org

>>>>> "Keith" == Keith M Wesolowski
<Keith> writes:

Glynn> - Also vaguely indicates that no on seems keen to
actually
Glynn> step up to the plate and be part of a wider
infrastructure team to
Glynn> work on this stuff

Keith> That conclusion is valid only if one assumes that
the Tonic team
Keith> is responsible for delivering the goods.  It
isn't.

Well, yes and no.  The Tonic team currently owns the webapp,
the
Jive/Mailman gateway glue, etc.  It's true that we don't own
any of the
bug-related software.

mike

_______________________________________________
cab-discuss mailing list
cab-discussopensolaris.org