No the Hotplug SIG does not want to reinvent the wheel, take charge or even make the currently active developers in the different hotplug area's life more complex. We created this SIG because we thought we could help and yes we need to get our homework done first but that was the number one item on the agenda. Maybe we should have done it before we created the SIG but then we would have fallen into the "meeting behind closed doors" category again.....you can never win! So here we are ignorant as can be (OK I'm admitting it and have no shame to), trying to understand what needs to be done, where and how we can help. Once we figured that out (BTW I like your words on "status report on the current state-of-the-art of the technology", if you don't mind I'll use that as my first item for our charter) then we'll contribute. Again a SIG is not to tell anyone how to do, what to do, when to do anything.....we're here to help....if you want it....and I do understand that some of the groups are far enough along that they might not need it but I didn't want to exclude anyone. Martine -----Original Message----- From: hotplug_sig-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:hotplug_sig-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Theodore Ts'o Sent: Thursday, August 12, 2004 2:50 PM To: Mary Edie Meredith Cc: hotplug_sig@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx; DCL Technical Board Subject: Re: [dcl_tech_board] Re: [hotplug_sig] [Hotplug_sig] Re:[dcl_tech_board] Announcing HotPlug SIG On Wed, Aug 11, 2004 at 03:47:18PM -0700, Mary Edie Meredith wrote: > > > Yes, of course, there are other mail lists. We didn't > > > really intend for SIGs to be the center of the > > > universe for community conversation about these > > > areas. Our intent is not to replace those, in > > > fact we expect that active developer-type participants > > > on this list will need to be signed up for the > > > hotplug-relevant lists in addition to this one. > > I didnt post there because I was not trying to attract the community > at large. We do want people with a DCL, DTL, or CGL interest. I > think Martine was going to consider the appropriate approach at the > kickoff to get wider than OSDL involvement. We wanted to avoid > exactly the reaction you had, that OSDL was trying to reinvent the > wheel or take change. Not. I can't help noting here that this is a microcosm of the sort of distrust that was voiced by the kernel development community at the kernel summit. Also, that perhaps marketing-speech such as "OSDL shall be the center of gravity for Linux" naturally causes people to assume that OSDL is trying to take charge. > > > We are just getting started. So we have done no > > > planning in the dark, nothing done before now to > > > determine what makes sense for OSDL. This is the > > > start. This sounds like a group was created without it having a distinct charter. I've always considered that to be a not-particularly-wise move, myself. If by your description, the goal is that the group (at least initially) is basically going to be an information-gathering group to see where the state of the art currently is, for the benefit of OSDL members who can't follow the various development lists directly, why not make that an explicit part of the charter, and task the SIG with the creation of status report of the technology of interest? This would no doubt reduce hostility and suspicion, as it admits upfront ignorance and a desire to learn, as well as disclaiming any interest in doing anything or trying to take charge, at least while the SIG is trying to do initial exploration of the space. A little humility can go a long ways.... Anyway, just a suggestion. - Ted
