> On 10/18/06, James Carlson <james.d.carlson at sun.com> wrote: > > Josh Hurst writes: > > > Unfortunately I have to add a general note here: > > > > Please direct the flames at /dev/null. They are of no use here. > Please understand that I am trying to start a generalised discussion > whether all this bureaucracy is REQUIRED. No other Open Source project > requires this kind of excessive bureaucracy overhead. We can either > discuss this here, in opensolaris-discuss at opensolaris.org or in the > CAB list. > I do not feel very well that I have to kickstart this discussion but I > think the excessive delays in the ksh93 integration project are no > longer bearable and require at least a look at the general process > -- > Josh
Well, at least you could attempt to kick-start it on the approrpriate alias with the approprate subject line, eh? opensolaris-arc seems appropriate to me. Go forth and kick. Before doing so, I'd suggest you reconcile the roles of the ARC in this community and the "committer" in most communities in your mind. For example, in Linux proper, if Linus doesn't like your change, well tough. Its true that totalitarianism doesn't need much bureaucracy. The open exchange of ideas and opinions takes time. That said, even though I'm probably seen as one of the bandleaders of the "trivial" discussions, I too am surprized how these ksh cases have tended to minutia. This isn't typical. I think it is in part to a disconnect of expectations. As I said, the ARC process often places us in the role of judging/guessing what our users would prefer. This isn't what each of us would prefer or we would prefer for our site. Its not clear that the community members aren't used to accepting the most common of their personal opinions. I'd actually like to see an open discussion of the above on the appropriate alias with the appropriate subject line. - jek3
