Back to the SDF, there weren't supposed to be any documents that were just for ARC review. The documents were supposed to just "fall out" of other requirements.
This never quite worked for a number of reasons. A large one was that the functional spec was too high level and the design spec was probably too detailed. Anyway, all that I'm pointing is out the process is *supposed* to be as light weight as possible and part of that is to accept a wide range of possible materials. Maybe this doesn't work anymore, but I still think the process should be as light of a weight a process as possible for the submitter. That said, the recent flurries of mail seem to indicate that "there must be a better way". - cheers, - jek3 Torrey McMahon wrote: > Joseph Kowalski wrote: >> Torrey McMahon wrote: >>> Nicolas Williams wrote: >>> >>> Why we still do architecture review, or discussions, over email is >>> beyond me. Email is horrible tool for such things. Con-calls are a >>> close second. >> So, if these are bad, what is good? Only meetings (which are pretty >> much con-calls at this time)? Wikis? (What is the plural of "Wiki"?) > > I wouldn't say bad. I'd assert we could do much better. > > --- > > A project team wants to get an architecture review. They go to the > request website, fill in a forms, and the automated back end starts > the review process. They get a case number, spot on a twiki/website, > and notification goes out to people interested in such things. They > automatically get a case owner from the pool of ARC members. Owner > gets an email, contact info, etc. and starts mentoring the team as > needed. > > Over time the project team starts adding materials to the project > including a automagically cross-referenced set of interfaces. Each > interface is properly marked with its stability level - The nice popup > box explains what each is - and it gets added to the project location. > All the associated questionnaires are provided and answers put into > the backend database. ARC cases that preceded this one are cross > referenced and added to the "Prior Cases" section. > > If an ARC member is interested in a specific change to an interface > they can click it and get more information including > Change history > Code attached to the interface (Yes, I know this isn't code review.) > X levels of interfaces that are used, upstream or downstream, by > the interface in question > > If an ARC member has a question on a specific part of the case they > can add the question, mark the relevant materials, and await an answer > via email/rss/text. Previously asked questions, and any answers, are > automatically added to the case materials to avoid people from asking > the same questions ten times. > > --- > > ... and thats just part of what I was thinking. I could go on for > awhile but my day job is getting in the way and I didn't want people > to think I was just throwing darts in the air. > > > > > >
