Roy T. Fielding wrote: > We've gone through this a hundred times already. The current ARC > process at Sun is not mandated in any way *other* than by choice > of the consolidation gatekeepers. Nothing has changed in that regard. > In fact, if anything, we have strengthened the ARC by removing the > ability for any one company to override a veto for "business" reasons. It appears that the OBG/Constitution changed the rules started by Sun and later adopted by the CAB. Is this a fair statement?
This all seems like the OBG has really dropped the ball. A lot of work was initially done by Sun and later by the CAB to produce a rational and complete view of the processes. It appears that the OBG changed some of the rules. That's fine, but please make a complete change to the processes and definitions - we seem to now have a ugly mish-mash of statements. If I'm a developer, do I follow the process flows or the constitution? (Hint, if a random developer has to read the constitution, something is very wrong.) Please, those who change the rules are responsible for making a complete and consistent change. They also need to make clear and precise statements to as wide an audience of community members as possible. Right now, this all seems like some dirty little secret. Also, I don't know the process for the ratifying of a constitution. I'd assume it involves more than the handful of OBG members. All community members? All core contributors? (Er, what the heck is a "consolidation gatekeeper". I know what that means in Sun internal organization, but consolidations and communities don't map. If this is the Sun term, then every thing does need to be ARC reviewed, at least until the sources can be modified by somebody out side of the SWAN - but that's a transitional problem.) - jek3
