Roland Mainz writes:
> > First, it should be a full ARC case, not a fast-track.
>
> I guess this would be the first OpenSolaris.org "full ARC case", right ?
Yes, I think so.
> > And you probably
> > want to start with an inception review.
>
> Did any other OpenSolaris.org project did such a thing yet ?
It's not that big a deal.
The bar for an inception review is intentionally very low. You don't
need a complete set of materials, and many things can be listed as "to
be determined.
The reasons for doing an inception are:
- the ARC members become familiar with the outlines of the project
early, which means that they'll have context when you come back
for the commitment review later.
- if there are things that you're changing that are also being
touched by other projects, the ARC can get you in touch early when
it'll do the most good, and help defend your project space against
other projects.
- you'll get early feedback on the parts of the project that ARC
members will want to hear more about, so you can concentrate on
those in your later materials, and save your time by not working
on things that aren't needed.
Inception reviews are part of the "ARC early, ARC often" philosophy.
You'll end up with a much smoother ride if you go through as a full
case when necessary, rather than going in as a large fast-track and
getting derailed.
(As a technical detail: we write opinions only for full cases. So, if
there's any reason the ARC needs to write an opinion -- as for
projects that set some precedent -- the case will need to be converted
to a full case first by derailing if necessary. Thus, starting off
that way is "playing it safe." A full case can always be "re-railed"
if we find later that it's less interesting than originally thought.)
--
James Carlson, KISS Network <james.d.carlson at sun.com>
Sun Microsystems / 1 Network Drive 71.232W Vox +1 781 442 2084
MS UBUR02-212 / Burlington MA 01803-2757 42.496N Fax +1 781 442 1677
