Joseph Kowalski <jek3 at sun.com> wrote:
> Joerg Schilling wrote:
> > "Shawn Walker" <swalker at opensolaris.org> wrote:
> > Since we have OpenSolaris, there was the hope that interfaces are no
> > longer defined by Sun as dictator but by the community. It seems that
> > this is not true.
> >
> > J?rg
> >
> The charter (or whatever) states that compatibility is a core attribute
> of OpenSolaris.
>
> Yes, new interfaces or new extensions to interfaces should be defined by the
> community, but the existing interfaces are dictated by the core OpenSolaris
> attribute of compatibility.
>
> I don't have the slightest idea why you don't seem to want to adhere to this
> core attribute of Solaris. As a matter of fact, you seem to be the only one
> who doesn't value it, but rather seem to prefer your personal preferences.
Roy Fielding also sees the same problems with the ARC process as I do.
It have been Sun people who claimed that the first integration wins.
Now if the community integrates things, it seems that Sun Solaris ignores this
and creates incompatibility.
Note that the ARC is a _Sun_ vehicle but not an OpenSolaris one.
We need a new and open method for OpenSolaris that is accepted by the community
and that integrates the community with equal rights.
Let me give an example:
I am sure that the ZFS team is able to derail a ARC fast track if they see that
is would cause problems with their project. If we have an open process, then
the
Community members need to be able to derail a ARC fast track in case that it
causes problems with an important OSS project. We had several examples where
even this siple way to start a real discussion on problems failed.
J?rg
--
EMail:joerg at schily.isdn.cs.tu-berlin.de (home) J?rg Schilling D-13353 Berlin
js at cs.tu-berlin.de (uni)
schilling at fokus.fraunhofer.de (work) Blog:
http://schily.blogspot.com/
URL: http://cdrecord.berlios.de/old/private/ ftp://ftp.berlios.de/pub/schily
