Garrett D'Amore wrote: > > I'm on sabbatical, so maybe all of this doesn't count. Nonetheless, I'm > unhappy that they still don't seem to have addressed a few (IMO) key > issues. > > a) Disconnect between software installed on the system, and > documentation presented. (I.e. examples can come from wrong versions of > Solaris, etc.) I worry that users can be presented with information > that is incorrect for their system, without any way of knowing that this > is the case.
A browser window will open, guiding the user to a page on opensolaris.com. There he sees the actual document. This is in no ways different from any other search result. Why do you think a user would expect that a document in the internet is in line with what he has installed on his system? This model works fine for documents searched through Google, Yahoo, search.sun.com. Where do you expect an additional disconnect? > b) The inability for 3rd parties to contribute to the documentation > repository without Sun's involvement. I consider this a critical > failing for an "OpenSolaris.org" project. (Maybe this should have been > run as an entirely closed case, with no pretense about being open.) > Hosting on OpenSolaris.org (instead of .com), and allowing other > community members to help manage the content would have alleviated that > concern. The method by which ISVs and other parties add to the > documentation repository needs to at least be spelled out, even if it > *is* with Sun's intervention. A user can add to the repository by submitting the document to the opensolaris documentation community and notifying us. The number of submissions in that community is so low that I don't see that any further automation is justified (so far we haven't seen any document from the community that would be suitable). Can you elaborate a bit more what you mean by "manage"? Typically the community does not manage the opensolaris infrastructure, like bugtracker, mailing lists, and so forth. Where do you see a specific need here? I don't see any architectural constraints that would prohibit a future closer community involvement. I would just like to postpone this discussion until the community shows interest and tells us how they would like to get involved. > Additionally after looking at the screen shot: > > c) The screen shot seems to indicate rather loose integration with > the desktop. The application doesn't seem to fit within the desktop > fit-and-feel (e.g. it doesn't look like it uses the stock widgets). The > toolbar integration looks (to me at least) like it is just an icon on > the toolbar that fires off the Java app, rather than a first class > resident of the toolbar (where the actual text entry widget would live > in the toolbar itself.) ISTR that the project team indicated that this > project had been reviewed by the appropriate UI folks -- are the other > ARC members satisfied? (I'm not enough of an expert here to have a > strong opinion about UI one way or the other....) I don't see a difference between the toolbar integration of the command assistant and other widgets like the deskbar applet, power manager, or netstatus applet. None of them has anything but an icon in the bar (just have a look at the deskbar applet which is a similar case). The xDesign people who we talked to did not express any concerns. Is there any other body that we have to consult for UI review? best regards Christof > > So, that said, I suppose I *could* be prepared to vote even without > answers to the above concerns, but the project team might prefer that I > didn't vote, at least not unless the project included TCRs to address > first two items. > > -- Garrett > > James Carlson wrote: >> The project team has asked that the ARC members review new materials >> in order to determine whether a formal commitment review is necessary. >> >> I've advised them to schedule a regular review, but I've also agreed >> to help them with this request, so I ask that all members expecting to >> vote on this case please review the updated documents in the >> 'post-inception.materials' directory, and then respond with an >> indication of whether you'd be ready to vote. >> >> Please provide a response either way by Tuesday, February 10th, so >> that we can have a vote in ARC business on the 11th. >> >> (I'm not asking for detailed issues or review comments; just an >> indication of whether you could vote on the materials as-is without a >> meeting. I'll call a vote if everyone agrees that they're ready.) >> >> >
