[OpenIndiana-discuss] Our position within the Illumosphere

[Alasdair Lumsden]

Hi Julian,

On 25 Aug 2010, at 10:58, Julian Wiesener wrote:

> i personaly like the idea of having a consinsten OS development project
> like for example FreeBSD have. It's the FreeBSD Kernel, Userland and
> Distribution, there are no name conflicts and other FreeBSD based
> distros will just keep their own identity. However, the osol history
> told us, that there are very talented people who tend to see their own
> project belittled if there is a reference distro with that name.

FreeBSD is very unified. I think I prefer the idea of Illumos/the kernel being separate, akin to the Linux/Linux Distro split, as it makes it easier for distributions to use it as their kernel.

> Both names OI and IllumOS are equal for me, i have to get used with
> them, it's just not Solaris.

*nods*

> The question for me is, what will promise the best result in a long
> term. I just want an stable open source Solaris like Indiana intended to
> be, and i like the usability of IPS, even if it is hard to use in some
> parts today.

Agreed. Without Illumos our project would be a real struggle - having that work managed by a separate entity makes things considerably easier, which will let us concentrate on the distribution side.

>> OpenIndiana becomes a sub project of Illumos, but only if any other distribution can do the same. This is to benefit from the Illumos foundation non-profit entity (saves us doing it ourselves). It shows the two projects are collaborating closely and are tied together.
>> We maintain our independence however in most other regards - separate governance council for ourselves, do not adopt an Illumos-ey name, keep our own infrastructure, own website, own logo, etc. Potentially share a bug tracker.
> 
> I would agree that, it totally make sense to use the same bugtracker, al
> least for the ON part. Distributing under the Illumos foundation will
> also protect the private persons from any legal issues.

Yes, I was thinking the same thing. At the moment we're short on American project members to crate a foundation for ourselves. It probably makes sense to have a single Illumos foundation with many members from a legal/strength stand point.

>> I would not like to be unilaterally appointed to the Illumos admin council just because I took the initiative to start this distro. That's not community - that's not democracy or openness. I would however like to represent our interests within Illumos as we depend upon them and we should be exerting influence over their decisions.
> 
> As far i understand, the Illumos councils will be filled with people who
> are actually doing something. I guess there is no doubt, that you did a
> lot to make OI possible, even if you didn't do everything your self.
> However, joining the admin council makes only sense if OI becomes a part
> of IllumOS, i don't think it would help anyone if you split your
> ressources between 2 projects.

I agree - I don't have time to work on 2 projects.

>> To that end I think it might be an idea for us to suggest they set up a "Distribution Council". Community distributions could appoint members to this council to represent their interests within Illumos.
> 
> Again i think it is a mixed blessing. It would canalize the needs of the
> distros what is good but on the other hand it would open the door for
> some persons with very difficult viewpoints as a "Distribution Coulcil"
> migth contain people from any Distros.

Yes, perhaps its better just as a discussion list rather than a council. It's a tricky one to manage. I guess it all depends on what the function of the council is and what rights members on the council have.

Cheers,

Alasdair