jimr@maths.su.oz.au (Jim Richardson) (09/12/90)
I've been following with interest the thread "Is Domain/OS going to survive? (was Re: How to modify the 'kernel'?)". There's been plenty of good discussion and thoughtful articles. One of the parts I liked best was what Aaron Sherman (asherman@dino.ulowell.edu) said in <ASHERMAN.90Sep9170611@dino.ulowell.edu>: >I think that what they should do is just add one more supported >environment [to Domain/OS]: OSF/1! This is exactly what Apollo would have done. Think of it: the only company in the world to offer OSF/1 and SVR4 simultaneously on the same machine! Now if we could just get HP to contemplate that ... Perhaps one of the biggest lessons to be learned from the Open Letter campaign is this: it's all very well having discussions on the newsgroup, but *just talking* doesn't achieve anything. We need some concrete goal, and a definite plan of action for reaching it. CALL FOR NETPOWER WORKING GROUP I propose setting up a "WORKGROUP" on the future of Domain/OS. The provisional goals of the Workgroup will be: (1) to find out what HP does intend for Domain/OS and OSF/1 in the future; (2) to try to establish a consensus on what we users would ourselves like to see in the future (or at least coherently to document the rival views if consensus is not possible); (3) to put the results of (1) and (2) together into some sort of compromise that HP might consider and we might be able to accept; (4) to campaign to persuade HP to consider the compromise proposal (3). The first job of the Workgroup will be to evaluate the above goals and improve on them if necessary. My experiences in the Open Letter campaign lead me to suggest the following methodology for the Workgroup: The Workgroup will consist of an active, participatory mailing list. People on the list will need to devote time and labour to the job: finding out information, carrying out surveys, sum- marizing the articles on the newsgroup, drafting documents, reporting back to the newsgroup, talking to HP, and more. Each person involved should be prepared to contribute at least two or three hours a week for the duration of the Workgroup, which would perhaps be around two months. It's a lot to ask, I know. But remember this: it's always hard to sacrifice time to achieving long-term goals at the expense of immediate ones, but it pays off in the end. If Domain/OS dies, much of what many of us are doing now will go with it. Why do I suggest a Workgroup: In effect I *was* the workgroup myself for the composition of the Open Letter; for the signature collection, Jon Ball, Colin Dente and I made a workgroup of three. I can tell you from those two experiences that it's much more effective, enjoyable, and easy on one's health and sanity to work in a group than alone. We can accomplish far more together than any of us will ever do on our own. Why do I suggest a mailing list instead of comp.sys.apollo: The newsgroup is great for discussion and for getting one's questions answered. But it's not quite focussed enough for the job of working towards some concrete goal. A participatory mailing list will provide a sympathetic work environment for getting things done. Because the people on it will have joined with the common goals I've provisionally outlined above, cooperation will be easy. So ... If you are in general agreement with what I've proposed, are willing to spend at least three hours a week (on average) for two months, and intend to *write* for the mailing list not just read it, please send me email. I've been discussing this idea with a few other people already, so if you do volunteer you won't be alone. A good size for the Workgroup is perhaps about a dozen. If there are more, we can always subdivide into sections to attack particular topics. If you are sympathetic but can't make so much of a commitment, you can help too: keep posting articles to the newsgroup for the Workgroup to think about; dig some useful information out of HP and let us all know; talk to your HP contacts about your concerns for the future of Domain/OS. By the way, I don't see why the deliberations of the Workgroup need be secret. This will be a decision for the group itself to make once it's constituted, but it might be appropriate to archive the mailing list messages and make them publicly available. The Open Letter campaign showed what cooperation on the net can do. (Anyone seen "UNIX Today!" on the subject yet?) But we haven't even scratched the surface in realizing the net's full potential as a way of achieving people's common goals and hopes. I look forward to hearing from you. -- Jim Richardson Department of Pure Mathematics, University of Sydney, NSW 2006, Australia Internet: jimr@maths.su.oz.au Phone: +61 2 692 2232 FAX: +61 2 692 4534