Re: [Linuxcoe-devel] HP LinuxCOE versus Open Source LinuxCOE

[Shank, J. R. <js...@hp...>]

On Tue, 2005-07-26 at 14:51 -0700, Paul Telford wrote:
> I disagree with this.  Our day-to-day (internal) users shouldn't need to know 
> or care that we're moving CVS/development somewhere.  The long-established 
> internal mechanisms for reporting bugs (email/irc/bts) should continue to 
> work, and should be inside the firewall.  If we want to manually proxy the 
> important bug reports over to the SF BTS we can.

I think it is a question of ownership. When HP agreed to Open Source
LinuxCOE, they gave up ownership of LinuxCOE to the world. If we follow
the ASCII diagram that I created in another post, we would continue to
handle HP customer issues internally, but be willing (as you said) to
report customer problems to the OSLP team. This would be identical to
using someone else's software. A team in HP manages the instance and
fixes problems with that instance, but reports bugs on to the actual
developer. Following this model makes the support path much clearer for
those of us who are on both teams. It also supports your argument to not
confuse internal users. However, I think we should also empower the user
to file change requests directly with the OSLP team. The benefits are
that we have less proxying to do and we educate the customer about the
open source development model.