Bill Sommerfeld wrote:
> On Thu, 2007-04-12 at 14:47 -0700, John Plocher wrote:
>> This actually may be a good thing, since in the long run (post-
>> PSARC-transition...) the ARC community should IMHO explicitly be a
>> derived one - the Core Contributers from all the other communities
>> should be defined to be the ARC Community.
>
> so I don't see why this should be the case.
Ask yourself "who" should be reviewing changes.
The answer that I come up with, in general, is
We all are responsible for managing the evolution
of the architecture of the things we build. The
groups that are impacted by changes need to play
a role in their review. The scope of "who" is
related to the scope of the proposed change: is
it local, within a component, or exposed for others
to use?
A simple bugfix is usually reviewed by a responsible
engineer and her immediate team members. In OS.o land,
this maps to the various contributers of a project.
If the bug/rfe impacts things outside a project, but
within a consolidation/component, the scope of reviewers
widens to include other members of the component's
development team. In OS.o, the idea of a component
is mixed in with the idea of a more amorphous Community,
so it is difficult to say who should be involved here.
If a proposed change exposes or changes externally visible
artifacts, then the developers of the other components
that depend on it get involved, because this sort of
change impacts the systems that OS.o part of. In the
OpenSolaris environment, the core contributers of the
various communities are the people that need to get
involved with this level of review.
If not these people, then who should be the decision
makers? Some group of engineers who are not involved
with OpenSolaris? Some group who are not architects in
their own part of the community?
-John
