Date: Thu, 21 Feb 2008 10:25:42 -0800
From: "Garrett D'Amore" <gdamore at sun.com>
Subject: Re: Opinion for Review: PSARC 2007/501 N_Port_ID
Virtualization for Solaris (02/28/2008)
Gary Winiger wrote:
>>
>> No issues were raised for the project team at commitment
>> review.
>
> There seemed to be issues discussed at the inception review.
> Were none of them worthy enough to note in the opinion?
There were issues at inception, indeed. They had all been
resolved before commitment though. I am uncertain what the
procedure is for noting issues that are resolved before a project
comes for commitment -- certainly there was no advice or
discussion at commitment.
Put another way, I _thought_ that the opinion does not stand
alone, but exists in conjunction with the case materials. Those
case materials (the commitment versions) had, I presume, been
found acceptable without need or desire for change. So I called
out a reference to them, and didn't mention it further.
Admittedly, I'm still new to the process here, but if there is
something else that folks would like this opinion to reflect, I'm
happy to change it. In such a case, though, I'd like to have a
little more guidance as to what should or should not be recorded
in the opinion.
Although the opinion certainly can and must refer to the case
materials, you can't expect most people reading the opinion to refer
to the materials; only people with a deep interest in the case are
likely to do that. Thus, the opinion should be written to stand on
its own.
That's not to say that it should duplicate information in the
materials. Instead, it should focus on issues pertinent to the
project's architecture, adding additional information only to the
extent needed to make the architectural discussion understandable.
When a given issue was resolved is irrelevant for the purposes of the
opinion's discussion. If it was important enough to occupy reviewers'
attention, it likely deserves illumination in the opinion.
-- Glenn
