John Plocher wrote:
> Joseph Kowalski wrote:
>> My first question is who the parenthetical (we) in the above is.
>
> In this context, "we" is "the project team, who is signed up
> (and competent) to do the work and the ARC which will try to
> ensure that the right work is actually done".
>
> Nothing at all to do with who pays or who decides, but on
> the step that follows after *someone* devotes resources with
> the intent to do so...
But, in most cases there isn't a project team. Who decides the tags
for the existing projects?
(Historical note: before the interface taxonomy, anything existing
was assumed to be Stable/Committed. I don't think we have that
option this time around.)
>> Isn't there something missing in the proposed taxonomy?
>
> Probably - I ignored the whole "how do we pick *which* FTP we
> want to integrate or aggregate" decision under the assumption
> that first come, first served. I didn't want to confuse things
> with Stephen's "preferred" concept.
Back to ftp, there seems to be more than one. Its not clear that there
is a "first come" implementation. We could assume that is the legacy
implementation (as we seem to be comfortable with libraries).
>> I can't fit these other ftp implementations as "Prototype" either.
>
>
> I forsaw Prototype being used when "we" wish to make a new version
> of an already "Integrated" something available before its ARC review
> has started/been completed.
Is this whole thing just a tool to make the boundaries easier for ARC
review?
If so, its probably a good start, but should have nothing to do with how
an object is "tagged". The case may get tagged, but not the final result.
>> suggest another set of levels:
>>
>> Integrated - as is
>> Preferred - they matter a lot,
>> Aggregated - Just as "cool and mature", but not "preferred".
>> Other - I just can't see a significant reason
>
>> All in all, I think we need to examine what "matter a lot" means.
>
> This seems to mix together the "how much effort do I wish to spend"
> and the "what does it take to join the exclusive country club"
> questions - similar, but not really the same thing...
Let me try to be more clear. The "Aggregated" definition contains that
assertion that "we care a lot" about these things". Perhaps that I'm
getting
hung up. There are a number of things which have been integrated which
are of only interest to a small number of users. Where does the line get
drawn?
>
> Besides, wouldn't Integrated things be more preferred than Preferred
> things?
I don't know where you are coming from here.
Any way, I think the answer is "it depends".
If I'm a long-time Solaris system admin, I probably prefer the "Integrated"
things (mostly because they are audited).
If I'm some other user from a different history, I may prefer the
"Perferred" or
even "Aggregated" things because of familiarity.
> -John
Are these levels just Metaclusters along a different axis?
Core -> User -> Developer -> All
Integrated -> Aggregated -> Prototype -> Expermental
(The observer may note that the first includes all the inner rings,
while the
second is only the things within that ring - this isn't really significant.)
- jek3
