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. I'm not arguing that any project team should do this -- only that noone can stop them from trying, EXCEPT that the OpenSolaris ARC must have the authority to deny/issue TCRs. The project team might feel entitled to rubber-stamp approval because they are Sun-internal or MegaloCorp-internal (for a MegaloCorp with an OpenSolaris derivative), but I don't think the OpenSolaris ARC should, or would, do that! Certainly I hope it wouldn't. > That's just not how the system was designed to work. If it's used > that way, then some very bad things happen. Either the ARC is > "forced" to accept something that's wrong because it's just "too late" > to fix it, or the project team is given TCRs that they can't (or > won't) implement, and it then becomes a political issue. The results > are _always_ worse that way. But I don't see how OpenSolaris can prevent project teams from believing that they can take this tack -- OpenSolaris can only refuse to rubber-stamp (and it should). > > ... But Sun, in particular, has an OpenSolaris-derivative product > > (Solaris itself), and I think it behooves Sun not to run closed cases > > that integrate into the closed portion of Solaris just to avoid public > > exposure. > > Really? And management agrees? I really think that; I don't know if management agrees. > > 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? > > > So, while we're forcing Sun management into openness, what's a > > > "Fishwork?" :-/ > > > > I think we're forcing Sun management to understand and live with the > > consequences of the openness policy that they themselves have set, > > rather than forcing them into openness that they are reluctant to > > accept. Here one consequence is that running ARC cases away from public > > view detracts from our stated policy of openness, so, which is our > > policy really one of openness? I think it is, but we're still > > transitioning; the window of opportunity for closed cases is closing > > fast. > > An interesting viewpoint, but I don't know if it's widely held. 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. Nico --
