+1 - Let's just get the opinion on this already reviewed case correct. -- mark
James Carlson wrote: > Jim Walker writes: > >> Also, does this account for the fact that most if not all >> of these are separate FOSS projects with various licensing? >> >> I think it is better to port these separately then >> combine them like Drools LSARC/2008/748 did. >> > > This discussion is certainly hitting on some important issues with > this project, and things that ought to be brought up with the project > team, but I would like to raise a point of order here: this is an ARC > opinion review. It's a review of the opinion as a written record of > what was reviewed and what the ARC and project team said in that > review. > > It's not a review of the project itself. If folks have problems with > the project as specified, the right path to follow is to contact the > project team first to see whether they're willing to make changes. If > not, then the appeals process for ARC cases should be followed. > > (And, yes, the appeals process is still broken for OpenSolaris. > Perhaps John Plocher could speak up about what an appropriate looking > process would look like. Maybe require a regular +/- OpenSolaris > community vote to initiate the SAC-level appeal, in lieu of having > Director or DE sponsorship, and then an OGB vote for CTO-level appeal, > in lieu of a VP or Fellow sponsor.) > > -- <http://www.sun.com> * Mark A. Carlson * Sr. Architect *Systems Group* Phone x69559 / 303-223-6139 Email Mark.Carlson at Sun.COM
