Joerg:
Just a bit of advice: disparaging the technical skill or ability of ARC
members is not likely to win you any more friends or influence, at least
not in this group.
In general, ARC members are selected based on the fact that they are
generally very senior, very knowledgeable engineers -- they are
recognized technical leaders with both depth and breadth spanning more
than one area. While they may not have expertise in *every* area
represented on ARC, in general the belief held by many is that they are
experienced enough to listen to those who have expertise in areas where
the members do not, and make sound judgments (taking into account their
own experience, and the facts that are presented to them during case
review.)
Even despite your absence at ARC, your position (as it was understood by
the members and other participants present) was considered, and the
leadership made a decision you didn't agree with. That does happen from
time to time. Please get over it.
As far as your outstanding star requests, yes, I did see that you
finally submitted a sponsor request. I suppose some day someone might
pick it up. Right now, working the issue isn't a priority for many
people. (And quite honestly, comments like the ones you made below fail
to excite some -- such as me -- to champion your case.) One of the
defects in the current request-sponsor is that it does depend on
volunteers from within Sun to participate, and since they are real
people, their own personal preferences can get involved in selecting
whether to pick up a case or not. Continuing to berate everyone at Sun
is not a good way to convince someone to volunteer to spend the *many*
hours that working on the star case is likely to involve.
As far as your other bugs or fixes (SCCS, or shell), I've not seen
them. Have you filed bugs, or request-sponsor on them? Frankly if you
have some "non-controversial" fixes or improvements, I'd be willing to
sponsor you, if only to prove to you that it is possible. I'm not
interested in getting involved in a politically and emotionally charged
debate, such as the star cases, though.
-- Garrett
Joerg Schilling wrote:
> "Garrett D'Amore" <gdamore at opensolaris.org> wrote:
>
>
>>> The problems I saw have been a result of the fact that unrelated people
>>> have
>>> control while people with related skills are ignored.
>>>
>>>
>> No. People were involved with the decisions. Smart people listened to
>> what the folks who "know" were saying. Then made a choice based on
>> their understanding. In the case in point, you *had* (and still *have*)
>> the ability to attend the ARC meetings and have a say. You don't get a
>> vote, but you can try to influence those that do. And you can by
>> diligence and participation work towards becoming a full member who
>> *does* have a vote (this is something *I* am doing now -- working
>> towards full PSARC membership -- 'cause guess what -- even though I'm a
>> staff engineer at Sun, even I don't get a vote!)
>>
>> ARC can't force you to participate. If you choose not to, please don't
>> blame the ARC for not making the decisions you want them to.
>>
>
> What is the benefit of explaining thing when later people who did not
> understand
> the problem decide? I had several discussions in OpenSolaris mailing lists,
> where it was obvious that some Sun people either did not listen or did not
> understand the problem. I like to discuss a problem with people who have the
> needed skills to do so.
>
> Note that I know many knowledgeable people inside Sun, but the ARC related
> discussions I had here have been influenced by some less skilled people.
> If you find a way to keep the few people out who miss the needed skills, you
> are welcome! This is why I make the proposal to give people benefits in ARC
> related discussions if they work on a program for a longer time. My proposal
> helps e.g. to score down those people who did never work on archivers if we
> have
> a discussion that is related to archivers.
>
> As a result of several cases that have not been satisfying, I expect that
> it now is the duty of people inside Sun to start a less disappointing case.
>
> I like to collaborate, but I don't like to be pushed back repeatedly.
>
>
>>> Sun has failed to take the code opportunities that are available from
>>> people
>>> outside Sun. There are a lot of code extensions an bug fixes available that
>>> are
>>> ignored.
>>>
>>>
>> Not every opportunity has been taken -- but that is not the same as
>> saying none have been taken. And more and more are being handled every day.
>>
>> Again, I think you have a particular beef because /bin/tar != star, and
>> because we haven't taken everything that Joerg Schilling wrote and
>> shipped it as part of Solaris. If you've followed other cases, you know
>> that other contributions *have* been taken, based on what priorities are
>> and based on the availability and participation of 3rd parties (and also
>> Sun parties) in getting all the various hurdles and process-work done.
>>
>
> I am sorry to see that you again try to start one of the flame wars instead
> of
> acting.
>
> I do a lot more than just star. I e.g. fixed and extended the SCCS sources
> as well as the shell sources. If you where correct with your claim, that only
> star is the problem, then there would be interest in other collaboration
> places.
>
> And BTW: I did ask for a sponsor for star at the "official location" more than
> 2 months ago to no avail. Please do not again try start a thread that is based
> on the incorrect assumption that there is colaboration from Sun before there
> is a request sonsor for star.
>
> J?rg
>
>
