>Casper.Dik at sun.com wrote: > >> >> >> >Roy Fielding also sees the same problems with the ARC process as I do. >> >> He sees a problem, but not the same problem. > >This is a really interesting claim! > >Are you Roy to be able to judge on this? > > >BTW: As you again tried to change the topic to create a bigger controversy, >I removed this part of your reply.
That's a fine way of avoiding the issues that are at the heart of your argument with the way the ARC works. I'm just not falling for the way you are attempting to abstract your two disagreements with the ARC. If you think the ARC does not work fine or if you think that the community agreed development process should NOT include the ARC, then by all means put forward proposals and we'll see how the wind blows. But at one point you will need to cite examples of where the ARC failed the community and the community at large would need to accept that these are indeed failures of the ARC and that it needs to be changed. Had you been in the ARC at the time of those decisions then you could have derailed the fasttracks. Then, I'm 100% certain, the outcome would have been an opinion (which is by and large the only result of a derailment) on which you as lone dissenting ARC member could have voiced your minority opinion. I'm basing this assessment on the fact that having heard your arguments, and they were heard, as the case directory reflects, not a SINGLE ARC member felt inclined to derail. In order to *change* the outcome of an ARC case you will need a majority of ARC members which support the TCR (Technical Change Required) or the outright denial of the case. The latter is extremely uncommon and the former does happen occasionally. A TCR sometimes reflects irreconcilable differences between the ARC and the project team as the great majority of such changes are dealt with during ARC review but also sometimes reflects the changes agreed during the final ARC review. Casper
