Re: [driver-discuss] [ogb-discuss] Project proposal - Integration (MFI driver for LSI network chipsets)

[Alan Hargreaves]

Joerg Schilling wrote: Joseph Kowalski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Joerg Schilling wrote: "Shawn Walker" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Since we have OpenSolaris, there was the hope that interfaces are no longer defined by Sun as dictator but by the community. It seems that this is not true. Jörg The charter (or whatever) states that compatibility is a core attribute of OpenSolaris. Yes, new interfaces or new extensions to interfaces should be defined by the community, but the existing interfaces are dictated by the core OpenSolaris attribute of compatibility. I don't have the slightest idea why you don't seem to want to adhere to this core attribute of Solaris. As a matter of fact, you seem to be the only one who doesn't value it, but rather seem to prefer your personal preferences. Roy Fielding also sees the same problems with the ARC process as I do. It have been Sun people who claimed that the first integration wins. Now if the community integrates things, it seems that Sun Solaris ignores this and creates incompatibility. Note that the ARC is a _Sun_ vehicle but not an OpenSolaris one. We need a new and open method for OpenSolaris that is accepted by the community and that integrates the community with equal rights. Let me give an example: I am sure that the ZFS team is able to derail a ARC fast track if they see that is would cause problems with their project. If we have an open process, then the Community members need to be able to derail a ARC fast track in case that it causes problems with an important OSS project. We had several examples where even this siple way to start a real discussion on problems failed. Jörg Like most people on this alias, I am getting kind of tired of hearing this. For some time now, we have been trying to get non-Sun folk to start taking a more prominent role in the ARCs. I have seen a number of requests for people to take up the role of PSARC Intern (which is something that I do too even though I am Support Services rather than engineering). Even without taking on a formal role, ANYONE can join the open PSARC calls every Wednesday and provide input.. The calls have been open now for quite some time. Generally the timing of them means a 5am start for me in Eastern Australia, (or 3am when we are not in Summer time), so there is no excuse for not attending because of time of day issues. I have it worse than just about every one, and I do it. You can even provide input if you are not on the calls by joining the email conversations about the fast tracks. Jörg, I am not belittling everything (or even anything) that you have accomplished in the past, but if you truly believe what you have written above then *you* have the perfect opportunity to *do* something about it by becoming a part of the process, rather than simply bitching about it. What is it to be? Something constructive, or more of the same? It also looks like you have a misunderstanding of the ARC term "Derail". A fast track is meant to be non-controversial, relatively obvious and able to be dealt with by email. If it gets to the point where one or more of these is not true then the fast track is "derailed" and becomes a Full Case. I'll say that again. It becomes a Full Case, NOT DENIED. There are incredibly few cases that are ever denied. All that it means by making it a full case is that it gets a much more in depth review process and the project team works closer with the ARC to get the project integrated. I *do* get tired of people painting the ARCs as big bad bogey men. The ARC process is incredibly valuable and is a part of the reason that Solaris is where it is now. alan. -- Alan Hargreaves - http://blogs.sun.com/tpenta Staff Engineer (Kernel/VOSJEC/Performance) Systems Technical Support Centre Sun Microsystems

_______________________________________________
driver-discuss mailing list
driver-discuss@opensolaris.org
http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/driver-discuss