On Wed, Jun 06, 2007 at 01:13:34PM -0400, James Carlson wrote: > Nicolas Williams writes: > > On Wed, Jun 06, 2007 at 12:15:31PM -0400, James Carlson wrote: > > > Nicolas Williams writes: > > > > But any project team can setup their own internal architectural review. > > > > As long as they are required to do a de novo architectural review > > > > through the OpenSolaris ARC in order to integrate into an OpenSolaris > > > > consolidation that's just fine and dandy. > > > > > > It does great violence to the ARC process to have completed projects > > > show up on the ARC doorstep marked, "hi! please approve me!" > > > > I think you misunderstood what I meant. > > That's ok. I think you misunderstood me, too. ;-} > > [...]
It seems that you think I'm for building some "lameness" into the process whereby Sun project teams get closed ARC reviews first, then open ARC reviews. I'm not, and that would be lame. I agree with everything you said below the above about ARCing early and often. > > > > Sun projects that wish to stay out of the public view until ready should > > > > just fine tune their timing in view of the need for running ARC cases in > > > > the open. > > > > > > That, in my opinion, is just plain broken. > > > > Huh? What's broken? Are you saying that we need closed ARC cases? > > Our management sees a need for projects that are closed. That much is > obvious. Our CEO hasn't said anything about that, has he? But he has set a very clear direction towards openness. Unless he has said something in favor of closed projects that nonetheless get to integrate into OpenSolaris (that being the crucial caveat in relation to OpenSolaris governance) and I somehow missed such comments, then I stand by what I said. > Some of those projects involve coordination across both open and > closed source. Legal encumbrances on source do not necessarily require closed ARC review, I think, but in any case, closed source isn't part of OpenSolaris (aside from those closed bins that we must provide for OpenSolaris to be complete). > > The decision to open Solaris came from the top, from Sun's CEO. Ergo > > Sun management adopted an openness policy. Perhaps all the consequences > > haven't been worked out and perhaps Sun management may change its view > > on openness, but for now the dictum we're working on is that we're > > trying to build an open community around OpenSolaris -- the dictum is > > openness. > > I agree with that. I just don't think the implications are fully > understood, as I suspect that the line between "business" and > "architecture" is not well understood. Right.
