Richard Lowe wrote:
> While it should be obvious to everyone present, I'd like to note here
> that making sure everything goes to the right list includes avoiding the
> overly cautious, nearly-everything internal, approach.
My focus here is to produce a mechanism that allows
A) internal folks to submit closed cases (...biz as usual...),
B) internal folks to submit open cases that allow both
external observation and participation, and
C) external folks to submit open cases and participate in reviews
of "open" stuff.
"Out of scope" for me right now is the social change/political effort
that will cause SMI (starting with ON and growing to ?everything?) to
migrate from using "A" as the default to using "B". I'm not saying
that this culture change is unimportant, but that, as a policy, it
*can* be somewhat disentangled from the mechanism and logistics being
discussed here and championed up by others who have strong interests
in having it succeed.
Right now, software development at Sun is much more than simply
Solaris, and even for the OS, we still face all the issues that forced
us to develop the CDDL license in the first place (3rd party closed
code...). This means that we/Sun will need to support many flavors of
projects, all of which need to be able to be incorporated into the ARC
review process:
Closed forever
Closed until some milestone (like integration into ON...), then open
Closed until patents are filed, then open
Open, but driven by a core team from SMI
Open, harvested from another open source project
Open, driven by the community
... and the list goes on ...
While I am committed to a goal of "100% open", it is probably more
realistic to say that 80% may be good enough; either way, we need to
get beyond 0%! "Every journey begins with a single step" - thus my
focus on getting us on the road to "1%" :-)
-John
