On Thu, 27 Dec 2007, Alan DuBoff wrote:
> On Wed, 26 Dec 2007, Roy T. Fielding wrote:
>
>> The likelihood of a sound architectural decision being rejected
>> by the core contributors (almost all of whom are Sun engineers)
>> is quite small.
>
> That's all arbitrary. The fact is that nothing substantial has been
> proposed by anyone, all of the meat has come from Sun. Yes, it's a good
> thing that Sun's engineers are still working on it, because the external
> community hasn't really come up with any type of sound architecture
> decision, AFAIK.
Not true. Case in point: the ksh93 integration project. This project
touches on so many areas of the OS ecosystem, that it is probably one
of the most difficult/complex integrations done to date - and it was
done by a community contributor (the unstoppable) Roland Mainz. In
fact, it was the contentious (technical) infighting within Sun
(engineering) that prevented it being done for many years.
>> Allowing all of the core to vote is the only way
>> that outside contributors will become part of the process.
But, in most, as in 98% (Wild Ass Guess), of the cases, a community
putback can't be blocked if it is technically sound and meets the
tough reliability/quality (etc) standards imposed by the ARC. Only a
technically flawed proposal can/should be blocked (sometimes
temporarily, until it is "up to spec"). And the entire technical
community, regardless of company affiliation, should help to resolve
any technical deficiencies identified by technical review to ensure a
successful and timely integration.
If this is not the case, or, if this is not the *perception* of all
the current, or potential, community contributors, then the
(OpenSolaris) Project is doomed to failure.
> Why so? Is voting currently that powerful? Currently it seems that voting
> has very little, if any apparent impact on any of the process.
>From my personal observations of the current process and procedures,
which may possibly be flawed, the current system appears to be
working, as exemplified by the ksh93 integration project, with the
obvious current exception of the mfi project, for which, AFAIK, no
technical deficiencies have been identified which would/could prevent
integration.
It is vitally important, IMHO, that the mfi project be integrated - or
valid technical obstacle(s) be identified, by reasonable community
involved consensus, which prevents it being integrated.
Having a (currently) Sun controlled integration gatekeeper, and having
a "please seek a Sun integration sponsor" requirement on current
community putbacks places additional pressure on *Sun* to be totally
fair to every current, or potential, OpenSolaris contributor. Yes
this is a temporary, unfair burden to place on limited Sun engineering
resources, but this is not the "fault" of any community contributor.
This is simply a couple of current OpenSolaris project *constraints*
that exist today, in the "real world". And yes, we are all working to
remove those constraints and to remove the unfair burden it places on
Sun engineering resources.
Remember that perception is in the eye of the beholder. If the
community does not share the *perception* that all but technically
suspect contributions/changes can be successfully integrated, then the
OpenSolaris project will not gain the mindshare it deserves and the
technically proficient contributors will contribute their expertise
elsewhere.
Regards,
Al Hopper Logical Approach Inc, Plano, TX. al at logical-approach.com
Voice: 972.379.2133 Fax: 972.379.2134 Timezone: US CDT
OpenSolaris Governing Board (OGB) Member - Apr 2005 to Mar 2007
http://www.opensolaris.org/os/community/ogb/ogb_2005-2007/
Graduate from "sugar-coating school"? Sorry - I never attended! :)
