> 4.3.2. Who gets to decide what changes get accepted into > "OpenSolaris", especially ones that affect the way the > "OpenSolaris Binaries" are built? > > One member asserted > "The real issue is that this isn't a change for you, or > even the community to decide. Where did you suddenly > become "product czar" for Sun's Solaris product? I > expect this self-review -> fast-track will simply > disappear. Its a product decision. I think it was > silly that you even suggested it. > > (Yea, I know the sources should be on the other side of > firewall and probably there should be a community con- > trolled distro, but that isn't the case.) >
Interesting. First, I'm the "one member". I'll stand by the assertion. However, I'm more than a bit miffed that this quote is from an e-mail I sent to the submitter: Roland Mainz. There were no other recipients. None, zero, nadda, Its also taken from a fairly long mail trail leaving out the context. Of course, I could provide the broader context, but to do so would violate my sense of ethics. Perhaps Roland would care to provide the entire mail message? I would welcome any comments, private or public, from this audience as how they react to private conversations ending up into publicly distributed documents, particularly indexed, archived documents. Perhaps some view the unspecific reference of "one member" as making this OK. I don't. There are currently on the order of 8 members and there are 3 (or less) who publicly commented on this issue. Its rather specific. I have no issue with my quotation being shared with the opinion author - John Plocher (hopefully shown the whole e-mail message). However, I wonder about his judgment in including this in the opinion; it seems that a long standing ARC member (and facilitator) should know better. Isn't John the individual who censored Joerg's posting and authored a "Guide to ARC e-mail Etiquette?". John, how did this get past you? Its also interesting that this is from section 4 of the opinion. That's supposed to illuminate the issues which concerned the ARC and their resulting beliefs. This just highlights "one members assertion" without providing the resulting conclusion by the full membership. Perhaps this is because this issue has still not been resolved? - jek3 (that's joseph.kowalski at sun.com)
