Neal Pollack wrote:
> On 07/27/09 02:24 AM, Alan Hargreaves wrote:
>>
>> And if this was what PSARC did, you could be right. Unfortunately we
>> are seeing a lot of sweeping generalisations being made here from
>> grossly inadequate (and quite frankly some of it is incorrect)
>> information.
>>
>> If you want to see what the *actual* role of the ARCs with Solaris
>> is, you should look at the ARC community pages at
>> http://opensolaris.org/os/community/arc/
>>
>> I would certainly suggest before condemning a process that folks
>> should actually perhaps do a little research rather than work from
>> hearsay.
>>
>> I will say from my experience of being a part of the process over
>> the last five years is that the ARCs work harder to get things
>> integrated rather than to kill projects. Indeed I can't think of the
>> last time (if EVER) a project was killed by an ARC.
>>
>> I can't put it any better than James Carlson did, ...
>>
>> No "truce" is needed here, because there's no "battle."
>>
>> Please. Take a breath. Perhaps two. And then think about replying
>> again.
>>
>
> +1
>
> I constantly see too much tension between the emotional side and the
> logical side.
> Most people do not study the process very deeply before submitting an
> ARC case.
> So without that training or knowledge, all the replies are
> mis-interpreted on an
> emotional (normal human behavior lacking additional information) basis;
>
> - questions or feedback == attack or trying to block my project
> - derail == attack or trying to block my project.
>
> But if we first study the purpose and process of ARC, we translate to;
>
> - derail == we should schedule a meeting or vote and get some deeper
> consensus on this issue to ensure a quality solution
>
> - questions/feedback == attempts to seek consistency, quality, and
> perhaps
> deeper thinking of creative solutions by the dev team so that the
> project
> will have sound architectural foundation consistent with the rest of
> Solaris where possible.
>
> On the logical side, both of the above statements are routine design
> discussion,
> simple thought and collaboration processes. But in my 18 years here,
> I keep
> seeing far too much of the emotional side, which I suppose comes from
> a simple
> lack of understanding the purpose and process of ARC.
>
> Perhaps ARC needs to start holding an open meeting every other month that
> is simply a tutorial review of what ARC does, and what the terminology
> and lines of questions are for, and are trying to achieve?
I don't know about every other month, but having a preso, with
explanations and archived slides, every so often, would not be a bad
idea. I know Plocher had some of this, although I've not reviewed it
recently to see how current it is, and whether its in a format that
non-Sun folks can readily consume.
This would be a nice project for some enterprising Intern to look
into... (hint hint).
I still want to get a regular full member on PSARC who is not a Sun
employee. (Ideally more than one of them, but right now we have only
one Intern.)
So let me state right up front -- almost anyone can volunteer to be an
Intern, which is a mandatory step before becoming a full PSARC member.
I'd *really* like to see more external Interns (right now we only have
Mark Martin, and I don't think he's going to remain an Intern much
longer... he's on track for Membership.)
At ARC we have some 'technology' issues which are making it hard for
non-Sun parties to participate, but we can work around those for now.
In the meantime, I'd like to invite anyone who thinks they can
contribute meaningfully to present themselves as an Intern. Here's what
you should expect as a PSARC participant:
* discussions centered around technical and architectural issues
* healthy constructive debate -- you must not be afraid to raise
issues and can't be a shy person
* a desire to be helpful -- we are frequently asked to help project
teams through the process, and this means being able to work with folks
who may not know the process
* however, no debate or criticism for its "own" sake -- members
don't go around looking for fights
* members and interns should have some significant visibility in the
community as a technical contributor (hanging out on mailing lists and
answering questions doesn't count here -- PSARC is made up -- currently
-- of software engineering folks)
* willingness to spend a few hours a week on PSARC. interns should
expect to spend at most about 4 hours (and I think most spend far far
less than that) and members up to 8 hours (but I've yet to spend that
much time) on PSARC. In reality I think I get away with about 2-4 hours
a week, and I do more than most because I'm also the PSARC co-chair.
* ability to be on the phone or in person at PSARC meetings -- they
take place at 10am PDT on Wednesdays
* a true belief in the value of the process as a tool to improve the
quality of what is delivered into OpenSolaris
* a certain amount of willingness to deal with administrivia and
paperwork -- Interns are often selected to write opinions and help out
with the paperwork for other cases
Most of the same things apply to LSARC as well, (I think the only
thing that is different is the meeting time.)
Anyone who thinks they fit the qualifications and is interested in this
should probably e-mail either me directly, or contact another PSARC
member. (Internal candidates can send mail to psarc-chair at sun dot
com -- I'm not sure whether that e-mail alias is accessible externally
though.)
- Garrett
>
> Neal
>
>> Regards,
>> Alan Hargreaves
>> (A PSARC Intern)
>>
>>
>> Jennifer Pioch wrote:
>>> On 7/26/09, James Carlson <carlsonj at workingcode.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Jul 26, 2009, at 9:44 AM, Jennifer Pioch <piochjennifer at
>>>> googlemail.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>> On Wednesday at the PSARC meeting. Only regular PSARC members can vote.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>> Who elected the PSARC members?
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> Nobody. Sun's CTO founded the ARC 19 years ago.
>>>>
>>>
>>> So let me get this straight: Since 19 years there is a
>>> company-appointed group of grey bearded gurus from Shang Gri la who
>>> decides about the fate of projects. Is that correct?
>>>
>>> Don't you think this is undemocratic, unfair and contradicts the
>>> spirit and intention of OPEN source? Going even further:
>>> I think the current ARC business contradicts the fundamental believes
>>> behind OPEN source:
>>> Open source means that processes, procedures and groups are OPEN to
>>> everyone and not some company-appointed group.
>>> Open source projects are either driven by democracy or meritocracy and
>>> not some invitation-only club for the wealthy company grey beards.
>>>
>>> Jenny
>>>
>>
>> --
>> Alan Hargreaves - http://blogs.sun.com/tpenta
>> Staff Engineer (Kernel/VOSJEC/Performance)
>> Asia Pacific/Emerging Markets
>> Sun Microsystems
>>
>
