Joseph Kowalski <jek3 at sun.com> writes: > 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. >
The ARC deals in interfaces though, I agree that any community producing code that would otherwise need to go to the ARC should and must do so. That is not all communities, however. I don't see any tangible interface producted by, for instance, advocacy. I took John's list to be non-exhaustive (since he obviously missed NWSC under storage, and g11n, for instance), and to be trying to imply that communities with nothing to ARC (no code) wouldn't interact with the ARC community. That does seem rather obvious though, doesn't it? -- Rich
