On 05/19/10 06:06, Erik Nordmark wrote: > On 05/18/10 04:52 AM, James Carlson wrote: >> I think that one of the underlying arguments in favor of this project is >> that since this is a one-shot deal (used only during install time, not >> in any subsequent post-install ordinary operation), it doesn't have to >> look like anything else, nor include options for all of the current >> networking features, nor follow any of the rest of the design in this >> area. It's an exception. > > The plan is for this project to handle the initial requirements from the > install team, and be useful as a stepping stone as we 1) make the > configuration post install more feature-rich and 2) move the network > configuration into the SMF. > > I realize the ARC can't review that, because it isn't done. Hence it is > hard for the ARC to add value in this case.
It'd be nice if some of those broader plans were included somewhere for review or at least for reference. It is indeed hard for ARC members and other participants to make any sense out of the materials submitted for review if there are crucial parts that are not included. The quality of the review and the eventual product both suffer. >> Even given that situation, I still think the project is misguided. A >> better approach would be to help the NWAM project do what's needed >> rather than building a bypass out of bailing wire. It seems a shame to >> miss the opportunity to have these groups working together rather than >> at cross-purposes. > > I don't understand how speculating on the organizational structure at > Oracle is part of the ARC process. I'm talking about the projects and the relationships between them, which are the items under review by the ARC. I neither know nor care about Oracle's internal structure. One of the important jobs of the ARC is to make sure that (as much as as possible) projects are working together in a common direction. The fact that there were clear statements in this thread from project team members saying that they didn't want to have to understand NWAM profiles certainly makes it appear that project alignment is one of the problems. http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]/msg00616.html http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]/msg00626.html http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]/msg00605.html > FWIW There is one organization working on network configuration. That > includes folks that have previously worked on NWAM. Then let's cut to the chase: have these install configuration bits been discussed on nwam-discuss? As the 20q document would ask: are the folks who are working in the NWAM area aware of what this project is doing, and do they agree with it? -- James Carlson 42.703N 71.076W <[email protected]> _______________________________________________ opensolaris-arc mailing list [email protected]
