On Fri, Apr 2, 2010 at 9:46 AM, Garrett D'Amore <[email protected]> wrote: > Based on what I see, we're talking about EOF'ing a useful and still used > feature of Solaris, with no replacement. > > While there may be reasons that we are not in a position to fund integration > of a replacement, I think this decision is impact-ful enough to go beyond a > fast track. As it stands now, the question we have to answer > Architecturally is, "do we need a SIP router for Solaris?" > > I'm going to derail this case, because such a decision at least requires > some basic discussion and a vote. I don't new materials are required, but > if the project team has materials that they can submit which demonstrate > that there is not a need for this functionality, that might helpful. > > If there are business reasons for the EOF which cannot be shared publicly > (and I'm not saying that there are -- I don't know!), then this case can be > converted into a closed one.
Firstly, I agree that this case seems to warrant more consideration than a fast track allows for the reasons that Jim Carlson and you mention. Secondly, and at the risk of veering slightly off-case-topic, I feel compelled to caution the committee and its members that we might be in danger of setting a precedent here for creating more closed exposure than would seem necessary. While I understand that Oracle's proprietary business information needs to be protected, and that disclosure of such information in cases is sometimes necessary, I wonder if the ARC and/or project teams couldn't do just the littlest bit of extra work here to continue to operate in the open fashion that it has in the last 5 years. Taking an open case back to a closed exposure status simply to report business justifications for a case seems a bit contrary for an ostensibly architectural (and therefor primarily technical) review. Just prior to this, an unrelated case (2010/067) was also created as a closed exposure case simply because the business justifications were included in the materials[1]. If there is a necessity for supplemental materials that are closed exposure, can we please consider an alternative way to allow review of those materials without impacting the current open status of this case? As I suggested to the project owners of that prior case, why not submit a separate case with the closed materials and its own closed discussion, and update both cases with references to each other -- similar to how umbrella cases are handled? That way, the closed exposure portions are deliberated and reviewed in the appropriate forum and with the appropriate limited disclosure, and the community at large can still participate in the parts that make sense for that larger audience and review. Umbrellas cases and all other cases I've seen are rife with references to related cases -- this doesn't seem like such a stretch from that long standing structure and process. It seems somehow short-sighted to allow, after 5 years of increasingly transparent operation, just the tiniest bit of proprietary information to allow otherwise open cases to complete totally in private, especially after spending so much money in these last many years investing in "opening" things up everywhere else in OpenSolaris Land. I'm more than happy to assist in any regard, and to the extent that it possible for me as an external contributor, to help with the extra administrative burden that might cause. I'll happily draw up template text that sponsors might include in the case(s) as I suggested above. [1] This is the alleged justification for the closed status. Regrettably, although that project team allegedly intends to eventually redact the materials so that some portion of the contents become open exposure, they have affirmed that they will not be doing it before the case is closed. _______________________________________________ opensolaris-arc mailing list [email protected]
