John Plocher wrote: > In an attempt to be proactive and clarify what the ARC expects > to happen in the rare situation where a case is submitted, but > nobody actually reviews it, PSARC developed the following > cross-ARC case approval process update. > > Since it started as a potential Sun-internal staffing and > resource issue, this policy was developed as part of "closed > PSARC business". During the last rev of the draft policy, > PSARC took steps to generalize the document so that it could > be openly discussed and become part of the open ARC community. > > By intent, the process seeks to be disruptive in the face of > this failure; the alternative of silently allowing un-reviewed > projects to slip through the cracks is extremely undesirable.
I totally agree with this but if ARC members do not review the fast-track material/proposal then that is of no fault of the project team or the case submitter. I think the responsibility of getting a case reviewed should be on the case sponsor. Case sponsor can help get the review done in time or extend timer as necessary. I do agree with the concept of "+1" or LGTM or any other positive acknowledgment that case has been reviewed but if no one wants to review the case then is there anything in the process for project team's escalate this too? If the case sponsor is an ARC member then does that count as "+1" as far as the review goes? > > Very few projects should fall under this process; in an ideal > world, it would never get used. > > Comments and discussion from the OpenSolaris and Sun ARC > Communities are welcome, but note that follow-ups are to > the OpenSolaris arc-discuss list. > > -John > > Todo: > Publish the new quorum/approval process to arc-discuss at os.o > and sac-review > Update the fasttrack handbook to include the specifics noted > below > Update the Licensee handbook to enumerate the sponsor's > new responsibilities > > > > Changes to the ARC Fast Track and Full Review approval process > ============================================================== > > Context: > > What we're trying to get at is the lack of quorum. > We've implicitly decided that fast-tracks can get by > with a reduced quorum, which is where the "+1" > criterion comes from in determining adequacy of > review. But full cases still need a full quorum. > > In response to several recent cases that were submitted, timed > out, and were approved *without* anyone actually looking at the > material, the ARCs have created a new ARC Case Status value, > > "closed denied not reviewed" > > This new status value will be applied to Fast Track and Full > Cases that are submitted and have materials for review, but were > unable to attract the attention of any ARC member to actually > review it. > > This will be measured by the absence of email discussion for a > Fast Track over an explicitly extended review period. Full case > owners are responsible for ensuring a minimum of two members > actually reviewed the case. > > An email/issue that simply affirms "I read the materials and > don't have any issues" satisfies this review intent. > > Cases that are "closed denied not reviewed" can be reopened by > any ARC member who is willing and able to gather the > people-resources needed to actually perform the review. Line > management may need to reconsider staff resource allocations in > order to provide review resources. > > The appeal path is to simply allocate the needed review resources > and reopen the case. > > Unless and until the case is reopened and successfully reviewed, > the "closed denied not reviewed" status is to be treated exactly > like "closed denied" - the project can not integrate. > > > ---------------------------------------- > Fasttrack handbook changes: > > http://www.opensolaris.org/os/community/arc/arc-faq/arc-fasttrack-handbook/ > > > 7) The Proposal Is Finalized for the Project and the Case Is Closed > > At the end of the day assigned as the expiration date, the > case sponsor needs to determine whether or not the case was > actually reviewed by any ARC members or if there are any > outstanding issues that would keep the case from being > "closed approved". > > If the Case's timeout expires without any ARC members > submitting email comments (including "+1" affirmations), the > sponsor needs to extend the case timer by 1 week and to work > explicitly with both the project team and the ARC membership > to foster the required review engagement. If, after doing > this, the case times out again, it is "closed denied not > reviewed". > > (If new review resources are found after closing a case this > way, an ARC member who will be reviewing the case reopens it > by setting the case's IAM:Status back to "waiting fast-track > MM/DD/YYY", and performing the usual review: submit > email/issues, discuss during ARC Business, etc, after which > the case is either approved or derailed into a Full Case.) > > Sun Internal note: If no resources can be found/allocated, > the issue of ARC Staffing needs to be brought up at the > appropriate VP and CTO levels. > > If there has been sufficient review activity, and no ARC > member has derailed it, then, once any outstanding issues are > resolved, the sponsor finalizes the proposal for the case by > ensuring that an accurate description of the proposal that > was agreed upon as a result of the email discussion exists in > a single file in the case directory (usually named > "proposal[.txt]"). The sponsor then announces the > finalization and approval of the proposal to the project team > and the ARC via email and officially closes the case by > updating its status (in the case directory) appropriately. > > Note: Once a FastTrack proposal is final, the proposal is > binding on the project, i.e., the project team must not make > significant changes without rerouting the project through the > review process. > > -- Hitendra Zhangada ============================================= SPS Common SW Features Engineering Software Group, Sun Microsystems, Inc. Work Ph# (858) 625 3757, Ext. x53757 SUN Internal homepage http://esp.west/~hitu
