Joseph Kowalski wrote: > Perhaps some view the unspecific reference of "one member" as making > this OK. I don't.
In the whole email trail, this was one of the most succinct descriptions of the issue you were objecting to - as well as what seems to be some rationale for why the project faced such strong opposition from the ARC. > I would welcome any comments, private or public, from this audience > as how they react to private conversations I wasn't aware that this message was intended to be confidential. As far as I knew, it was ARC related email pertaining to this case, sent to the external-to-Sun project submitter - and thus to me. I didn't really look at the mail headers. This mail (and the thread it was from) played a /very large/ role in the project team's poor perception of Sun and the ARC process for this case, and (colorful as it was) did a good job of characterizing why you objected to this case. The only other messages that touched on this were: > If this "just a c-team issue", who gets to make this "product > decision"? I can buy that it might not be the ARC, but who? > Roland and an advocate? If Roland can just integrate "coreutils > should be 64-bits", can I almost immediately integrate "coreutils > should be 32-bits"? or > Its the switch. You nor I have access to that switch. I'm > just trying to figure out who has access to that switch. and > I finally see the need for an opinion. Its a formal way to tell > the c-team that they should to cast a *very* suspect eye at > the "coreutils + bash" integration request. Nothing wrong with > it, there just isn't anybody "at the switch". They should (IMHO) > place it on hold until somebody is "at the switch". Not nearly as cut and dried. I admit, I may have missed a better summary in the 100+ messages in the mail log. As I said, this is a draft opinion. I welcome replacement text for this section if you would care to provide it. -John (now really on vacation and out of email range...)
