+1. I think you get the point of what I've been trying to say all
along. ;-)
-- Garrett
John Plocher wrote:
>>> we continue to argue that there is some imagined need for closed
>>> review.
>
> My perspective here is that the OS.o community is asking for
> problems if it unilaterally declare that, effective immediately,
> they will not accept any projects (lower case) that have not
> had an open ARC review/approval.
>
> I am not arguing that such a stand is undesirable; rather it is
> the short time frame, lack of interaction with the current process
> stakeholders, etc that, in my mind, will cause a train wreck.
>
> As part of this policy, OS.o needs to engage with Sun to
> figure out when and how we can make the transition from what
> we have now to something that will continue to work well in
> the open.
>
> If we don't address the things that cause projects to start
> off closed (ignorance, closed c-teams, apathy, closed project
> teams, closed product teams), simply asserting that we won't
> accept them any more will just result in projects being caught
> between a rock and a hard place.
>
> As for closed reviews, they should be the absolute exception.
> The whole thing about [a,b,c] is interesting, but (IMHO) only
> would apply to 1 or 2 projects per year out of the ~500-1000
> that would be open. That is, don't absolutely prohibit it,
> but don't encourage it either. Just allow for exceptions.
>
> -John
