John Plocher wrote: > Joseph Kowalski wrote: >> John Plocher wrote: >>> Without a real ON community, things are hard. Once there is such a >>> beast, it could simply vote to require ARC approvals before any and all >>> gate integrations. >> As we often say, PSARC != "ON-arc". > > > Nowhere did I mention PSARC - we have the OpenSolaris ARC Community > that has this responsibility - a community that does not (and > does not need to) map to strictly PSARC, or vice-versa. No, but you said an "ON Community would help make PSARC valuable". > In the OS.o world, communities are the key players; communities > that maintain associated consolidations (like ON, X, Desktop, ...) > are the ones that I expect would make the "need to ARC" decision. > > The ARC community has PSARC and LSARC members/interns/licensees > as contribs and core contribs; it also has quite a few more participants, > some of which are (or should be) very close to making the step up > to Contributer and Core Contributer. > > -John I'm sorry, but making ARC an optimal step is silly (yea, we've been there). The major benefit of ARC is making what we used to call "consolidations" play nice with each other. Now we need to make "communities" play nice.
Having ARC being optional can only play into the "tragedy of the commons" (aka: the free rider problem to economists). The optional choice for each community is for all other communities to engage with the ARCs, but to not engage themselves. The net result is nobody engages. What a big surprise. If we want to just be like all other "collections of communities", so be it. I thought we had something special going. I guess not. - jek3
