Garrett D'Amore wrote: > I think you may be misunderstanding Bill's response.
Probably :-( > > I think we can form a reasonable ARC community from senior > members/leadership who _are_ participants in OpenSolaris. +1 > I do not believe it is sound to believe that every OpenSolaris community > has leadership that have the technical judgement to guide OpenSolaris. +1 > I do believe that we should try harder to get people who are currently > employers of a major OpenSolaris contributor to also become part of the > _public_ process. That means that some of those people should probably > be participating here. +1 - I see this as part of transitioning from Sun's internal PSARC process to one entirely under OS.o where other company's developers can participate as peers and equals. > Some of them already do... we even have ARC representation on the OGB. Darn, and I had such high hopes for the OGB :-) Seriously, this is good. > I do not think it is a good idea for folks in the user-groups community > to be weighing in on kernel land APIs, though. (At least not if their > only qualification is that they run a user group somewhere.) + 1 - see my follow up email. It is amazing how many errors you find only /after/ you send things to a large alias :-) > > All this goes to say, I don't think you can automate the ARC selection > process. Since the whole community/project/contributer/core thing is still a mess waiting to get cleaned up, it is hard to see through it to a future state where things will be better. It may be that the core contributers of all the other (cleaned up) communities are automatically OS-ARC interns, and the OS-ARC community decides who to promote to Core status based on whatever criteria they choose to use. My main concern is ensuring that the processes we actually *use* in OS.o as we invent and evolve architecture in OS.o-land are the same ones as used/implemented by the OS-ARC. This means fighting the Us-vs-Them battle, ensuring that those people who are actually doing architecture are doing it in the context of OS-ARC, and that the people on OS-ARC who are evaluating architectural change are the the ones inventing and evolving it. "We review our own stuff", so when we decide something, it is us making a decision about our stuff, and not some committee forcing stupid decicions on us that we automatically disagree with". > selected probably by OGB, I'm not certain we want to open that pandora's box. The OGB should be a decision maker of last resort, and not involved with day-to-day operations. I'd rather cadjole a good set of people to join the OS.o ARC community, get them working effectively as an ARC, and then simply define them to be the initial bootstrapped OS-ARC. If that effort fails, or if someone does not like how it was done, then it would be appropriate for them to bring it to the OGB for resolution. > And that's an important point. As I understand it, ARCs are _technical_ > entities making _technical_ recommendations/judgements... +1 The various communities/projects are responsible for answering the question of "do we want [this]?" The ARC focuses on "Is [this] the best way to solve the problem?" -John
