Joerg Schilling writes: > Keith M Wesolowski <keith.wesolowski at sun.com> wrote: > > He's not asking Roland to make changes because he's his manager and > > can tell him what to work on. The correct way to interpret this is as > > an exchange of review commentary between peer engineers. If Roland > > doesn't want to make those changes, Meem can ask the C-team to block > > his RTI due to unsatisfied review comments. That's not the same as > > saying that Roland has to do this or that or he's fired. > > OK, if I get the right to block the RTI for the next unplanned (*) Sun tar, > I have no problem with this point of view. If this is not possible, it would > help a lot if there was a more realistic approach.
What on Earth is an "unplanned Sun tar?" It boggles the mind. In any event, I think there might be some confusion here. Nobody was talking about "rights." Meem can (if he thinks it's the right thing to do) _ask_ the C-team to block the RTI due to unsatisfied review comments. You could do the same thing if there were some project attempting to integrate that had unsatisfied review comments. That's the abject failure path, and it should almost _never_ be used. The right path is for reviewer and reviewee to discuss the issues and figure out what (if anything) to do about them. The whole point there is reaching consensus, not fighting. -- James Carlson, Solaris Networking <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
