Roy T. Fielding wrote: > On Jan 5, 2008, at 8:45 AM, Alan Coopersmith wrote: > >> Joerg Schilling wrote: >>> "Shawn Walker" <swalker at opensolaris.org> wrote: >>>> At last check, it didn't. Rather, the ARC process and integration >>>> does instead. >>> >>> AFAIK, the ARC process is not an "opensolaris process". It is a "Sun >>> Solaris" >>> process. See a mail thread from Roy Fielding 2-3 weeks ago. >> >> Roy is mistaken, as the ARC is open to the OpenSolaris community. > > I am not mistaken. The ARC is an advisory board that some people go to > for sage advice on interfaces, after which their community can make > decisions (process) on the basis of that advice. The ARC has no > direct "process" role at OpenSolaris, nor is there any OpenSolaris > requirement associated with seeking the ARC's advice. People will do > so because the core contributors will make a decision to do so *when* > it is appropriate for a given community's scope, not because the > organization (or Sun) commands it for everyone. > > ....Roy > Oh sigh,...
See http://www.opensolaris.org/os/community/arc/ Yes, there are many places where this document can be interpreted in strange and wonderful ways. However, a couple of things seem fairly clear... The ARC is a review and commitment (not advisory) board. It is an OpenSolaris board, not a Sun board. The proposal under review must be accepted before a project and be accepted into OpenSolaris. This all seems rather clear in this document. Personally, I've been very disappointed that all the current "Open Solaris Architecture Community" is composed of community members which happen to get paychecks from Sun Microsystems. My personal belief is that the set of community members who: [1] have shown broad architectural knowledge and judgment [2] are willing to make the time commitment [3] don't get a Sun paycheck seems to be a null set. I believe this has very little to do with [1] and everything to do with the dependency between [2] and [3]. It takes real time and commitment to be a committee member. The process is still morphing, but I don't understand the complaining about the inadequates of the process when compared to similar organizations. Apache is a closed club (maybe not that different than OpenSolaris in the minds of some), but is based on veto power (or a veto of two) while OpenSolaris is by majority. Do I need to say anything about the review policy of Linux itself? Nothing is perfect. Let's make this better rather than casting aspersions or disseminating mis-information. - jek3
