Glynn Foster wrote: > > John Plocher wrote: >> Glynn Foster wrote: >>> So PSARC would be a relatively natural candidate for going completely >>> public - >>> or least enough to shift the non-public cases to a different ARC? >>> >>> Dare I say it, OSARC anyone? :) >> >> Due to Sun's email security policies, the name will probably be >> "PSARC-ext" to ensure that the fact that the mail is going outside of >> Sun isn't forgotten by the sender... > > I'm not sure I understand the rationale for it to continue to be a @sun.com > alias - if the reviews are 95% likely to be open source, wouldn't it be more > ideal to be @opensolaris.org, and encourage people to contribute there? Feels > more open and more inclusive to me. >
The problem would be the other 5% (which could be solved by reversing John's scheme, and having those go to a psarc-int). But the larger problem is the sections of the onepager template that asks for Sun confidential information, competitive analysis, and all that fun, which clearly shouldn't be circulated out here. (though it would seem a link to an on-SWAN URL or the like could deal with that). -- Rich
