Keith M Wesolowski wrote: >> out and do it properly. To take your example above, I can see no reason >> why the DTrace CG would choose to run its projects in another CG - there >> appears to be no real benefits in that approach. And if the ON CG dies >> (as it should), it wouldn't be an option anyway. > > Please tell us who is responsible for ON itself in that scheme. > Specifically, who will perform the functions the Sun C-teams performed > in the past, and by what authority will they do so?
In the existing Solaris Engineering structure it most definitely isn't the role of the cteam to own projects. The cteam ensures that development standards and practices are followed, coordinates the integration of large project, oversees the operation and building of the gate and acts as an advisor to project iteams. It most certainly does *not* own implementation projects. The current ON CG is a radical departure from that model, not an example of it. I have no problem with, for example, there being a Consolidation CG with an ON Project underneath it, or even having ON as a CG. I do have a *big* problem with the ON CG 'owning' implementation projects as it means there is a clear conflict of interests for members of the ON CG who will be wearing both their 'cteam' and 'iteam' hats. The existing Solaris Engineering structure provides a vital 'checks and balances' mechanism that is completely absent from the ON CG. The current ON CG is clearly a bad idea, and should be restructured or replaced. -- Alan Burlison --
