James Carlson wrote:
> Garrett D'Amore writes:
>
>> I think that, for the near term, PSARC should be explicitly chartered by
>> OpenSolaris. I'm not sure about the other ARCs, but I have little to
>> do with them. ;-)
>>
>
> There's a bit of a disconnect here. PSARC is explictly and most
> emphatically *NOT* "the Solaris ARC."
>
> Nor is it more narrowly "the ON ARC."
>
I understand that.
> Instead, it's the platform software ARC. It was chartered to handle
> all platform software. Yes, Solaris happens to be a very important
> platform, but it's not the only one, nor is all Solaris software
> necessarily "platform software." Many important things for Solaris
> are done in the other ARCs.
>
Of course.
Perhaps what I meant didn't come across clearly. What I'm saying is
that, at least in the near term, I think OpenSolaris should basically
give a "grant" to PSARC to authorize cases. It may make sense to
provide similar grants (especially LSARC, but maybe others besides.)
I don't necessarily intend this situation to be permanent.... eventually
OpenSolaris will need to build its own ARCs for its own needs, but as a
transition measure, it seems reasonable.
> I don't think rechartering PSARC and trying to make it the OpenSolaris
> ARC necessarily makes sense, as you'd be essentially talking about a
> new group -- not PSARC by any stretch.
>
See above. I think maybe I didn't really express what I'd like to see
happen very clearly.
> I'm beginning to suspect that we need an ARC that is open-only, and
> leave various distributors to create and run their own internal ARC
> structures as they see fit.
>
>
I believe that even OpenSolaris.org will need at some point, to run
cases that are, for a time at least, closed. (Or at least, only open to
a limited selection of individuals, not necessarily based upon their
place of employment.) I think some thought should be given to that.
-- Garrett
