James Carlson wrote: > 1. Appeals Path My thoughts on this are rather simple:
The "business" questions of whether or not we wish to do something are made entirely by the Core Contributers in the communities that sponsor the projects. This is already reflected in the project creation requirements... The "technical" question of whether this is the "right way to do it" obviously can't do the current dance thru Sun's technical management chain. Instead, the project team that wishes to appeal should simply go back to the core community members of its sponsoring communities and convinces them (or fails to...) to bring a formal appeal to the OGB. This triggers the "OGB gets involved when disputes arise between communities" clause, and the OGB decides things. More thoughts on this whole topic are in the ARC community: http://www.opensolaris.org/os/community/arc/handbook/arc-dev-process/ > 2. Contracts > > ARC contracts currently require 'signatures' from managers that > 'own' the technology components within Sun, and these normally > tie into bugster category/subcategory. What's the equivalent for > OpenSolaris? (Perhaps communities can sign contracts now ... but > what happens when a community dissolves?) What happens when there is a Sun Reorg? IMO, contracts between components/consolidations are a BAD THING and generally should be forbidden/avoided if at all possible. Instead, interfaces that have a greater commitment should be explored and developed such that we don't end up lock-stepping everything together with contracts. -John
