On Wed, Jun 06, 2007 at 10:32:39AM -0400, James Carlson wrote: > Keith M Wesolowski writes: > > Consider the alternative: a MegaloCorp project team engages in > > confidential review early in the life of its work, and does its work > > in secrecy on the basis of that review's results. At a later time, > > when the project is complete and has been approved within MegaloCorp's > > processes, the team is new ready (based on whatever criteria it or > > MegaloCorp chooses) to share the code with the rest of us. Prior to > > integration, we require an open architectural review of what is, for > > all intents and purposes, a completed work. > > Indeed. It's not acceptable as an open process. ...
But any project team can setup their own internal architectural review. As long as they are required to do a de novo architectural review through the OpenSolaris ARC in order to integrate into an OpenSolaris consolidation that's just fine and dandy. Now, if project team can also just integrate into a closed portion of an OpenSolaris-derivative. Again, nothing wrong with that -- anyone can fork the codebase, though we'd rather not see it happen. ... > ... However, after > switching s/MegaloCorp/Sun/g, there are practical problems to consider > -- Sun can't just sink because OpenSolaris tells it to. I don't know > what the balance might be, but that doesn't seem like a viable answer. ... But Sun, in particular, has an OpenSolaris-derivative product (Solaris itself), and I think it behooves Sun not to run closed cases that integrate into the closed portion of Solaris just to avoid public exposure. Even Sun projects that intend to integrate in the closed portion of Solaris because of legal encumberances should run their ARC cases openly if at all legally possible. Sun projects that wish to stay out of the public view until ready should just fine tune their timing in view of the need for running ARC cases in the open. The only real sticking point I see is security fixes that require architectural review where the security bug is unknown outside Sun. But those should be exceedingly rare. > So, while we're forcing Sun management into openness, what's a > "Fishwork?" :-/ I think we're forcing Sun management to understand and live with the consequences of the openness policy that they themselves have set, rather than forcing them into openness that they are reluctant to accept. Here one consequence is that running ARC cases away from public view detracts from our stated policy of openness, so, which is our policy really one of openness? I think it is, but we're still transitioning; the window of opportunity for closed cases is closing fast. Nico --
