* Bill Sommerfeld <sommerfeld at sun.com> [2007-09-13 14:20]: > On Thu, 2007-09-13 at 21:57 +0100, Peter Tribble wrote: > > What I absolutely don't want is to have an implementation that has > > had zero community involvement to this point presented to us as > > "the solution" and implemented as the packaging system for Solaris > > by sheer inertia. I hope that's not going to happen, and would like to > > see clear statements as to the level of engagement the project team > > will have with the community. > > This aspect concerns me as well. (I'm a member of PSARC who would > ordinarily be involved in archictectural review of this project. Since > I'm not part of the implementation team, I'm closer to "the community" > than the project team). > > What's more, comments such as: > > "all aspects are debatable, as > long as (a) the debate is resolved by someone ultimately writing code > and (b) the end product still resembles what we were talking about at > the beginning". > > seem to me to conflict with our existing architecture review process. Not at all. A project team can run its discussions with some set of constraints; these constraints would not apply to the architecture review needed to enter a specific consolidation. > Given the discussion so far, I think PSARC inception review (or perhaps > a "pre-inception", if we start doing those) for this project cannot > happen too soon.
Noted. - Stephen -- sch at sun.com http://blogs.sun.com/sch/
