So as a somewhat dispassionate observer.. The ARC assumes folks in the community know way more about the way it works than they actually do. The language usage in these reviews has some specialized meanings that only the initiated are going to know. It is terse and appears confrontational to those who haven't a good familiarity with the beast.
Joerg seems to come from the standpoint that everyone will be against him, and when you start out with a preconceived idea of how Sun or anyone else will respond to you, to a large degree you see what you expect to see. As noted by others, email is an appalling way to do this business. The written word is so easily misinterpreted and with the facility of instant reply, the result can be chaos. This is amplified by the intermixing of those who know (and accept) the language and process, and those who do not. If we are to be successful in extending our ARC process to the world, we need to make it much more accessible and interpretable. Initiating community members into the club one by one, letting them learn the hard way as we in Sun do when first coming to the ARC, just will not scale. (Not to mention the image it projects). One thing which WILL help IMO is to get a clear division between core cases and cases which are for non-core repositories. That way at least we can keep the most arcane process for the core and liberalize the the interactions most of the community will engage in. -George *>Date: Thu, 20 Mar 2008 15:13:16 -0400 *>From: Brian Utterback <brian.utterback at sun.com> *>Subject: Re: How to waste everyone's time and give the ARC process a bad rep (was Re: star access control [PSARC/2008/176...]) *>To: Joerg Schilling <Joerg.Schilling at fokus.fraunhofer.de> *>Cc: Joseph.Kowalski at sun.com, John.Plocher at sun.com, Timothy.Cramer at sun.com, tim.marsland at sun.com, Scott.Rotondo at sun.com, PSARC-ext at sun.com, Phil.Edge at sun.com, Margot.Miller at sun.com, Ken.Erickson at sun.com, jek3 at sun.com, gww at eng.sun.com, gdamore at sun.com, Darren.Reed at sun.com, andrew.roach at sun.com, Alan.Coopersmith at sun.com *>MIME-version: 1.0 *>Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT *>X-PMX-Version: 5.4.1.325704 *>X-PMX-Version: 5.4.1.325704 *>User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.13pre (X11/20080316) *> *> *> *>Joerg Schilling wrote: *> *>> If people are too lazy to inform themself about the task of a piece of software, *>> how it is used and where the problems are, we will again end up in the same kind *>> of ARC discussion. This ARC case was full of questions that every sysadmin who *>> ever wrote a remote archive using ufsdump, GNU tar, star, ... could answer. *> *>And yet, rather than answer questions you apparently felt were beneath *>you that would have allowed the case to proceed, you decided it was *>better to essentially respond RTFM and let the case stall. As Garrett *>has already pointed out, it was up to you to inform us, a *>responsibility you shirked. While we may have appeared lazy to you, *>you appeared arrogant to us. And it was your case that was not approved. *> *>Perhaps next time you will have learned that we are not lazy, and how *>not to appear arrogant. Both of those lessons will help you case get *>approved, I think. *> *>-- *>blu *> *>There are two rules in life: *>Rule 1- Don't tell people everything you know *>---------------------------------------------------------------------- *>Brian Utterback - Solaris RPE, Sun Microsystems, Inc. *>Ph:877-259-7345, Em:brian.utterback-at-ess-you-enn-dot-kom George Shepherd http://clem.uk/~georges/ ============================================================================== Solaris Revenue Product Engineering: | SUN Microsystems Core team -Internet | Guillemont Park Email: George.Shepherd at Sun.COM | Camberley GU17 9QG Disclaimer: Less is more, more or less | United Kingdom ==============================================================================
