> > I've also suggested that the "closed" reviews should not meant that they
> > were held "internal" to any contributor, but rather that only the
> > OpenSolaris ARC members and the case owners were part of the review, and
> > that the case materials are locked up (only accessible to ARC members,
> > case owners, and maybe interns.) Note that these ARC members could be
> > employees of Sun, Joyent, or Microsoft for all I care. That shouldn't
> > matter.
We're proposing that the ARC community conduct these reviews.
7.10. Meetings.
Each Community Group is considered "in meeting" from the moment
it is initiated by the OGB to the moment it is terminated. All
Community Group meetings shall take place using asynchronous
collaboration mechanisms, such as electronic mailing lists, that
are open to the public for read access, archived for later
review, and able to accept communication from all participants
such that it is reasonably believed to be delivered to all
participants in a timely manner. In addition, each Community
Group shall be assigned an archived private mailing list for
limited use by the Community Group's Core Contributors for
discussion of matters related to pre-publication security
defects in products managed by the Community Group, nominations
to Core Contributor status, and other personnel issues for which
public discussion is inappropriate. Non-public discussion
related to the Community Group, such as in-person meetings or
private communication, shall not be considered part of the
Community Group activities unless or until a record of such
discussion is made available via the normal meeting mechanism. A
decision shall be an act of the Community Group when an issue is
discussed within the ongoing Community Group meeting, a specific
proposal is made to that meeting, and such proposal is agreed to
in accordance with the Community Group voting procedure defined
in Article VIII.
The only private discussions that the community group shall have must be
related to pre-publiction security defects, core contributor
nominations, and personnel issues. If the ARC community group is going
to conduct a closed review, this stipulates that a record of the
discussion must be made available. Otherwise, this discussion wouldn't
be considered part of the CG's activities.
> It might be wasteful, since some concerns dispensed with earlier are
> likely to resurface. But still, sounds like a good compromise to me.
I disagree with the statement that previously mentioned concerns have
been dispensed; rather, they've be avoided.
| I would expect an OpenSolaris C-team to disregard any invisible, closed
| review, whether made within Sun or elsewhere, when determining whether a
| project is ready for integration into an open consolidation. That is,
| if your project is Sun-confidential, it is Sun-confidential all the way
| through and past integration, and you are therefore targetting a
| Solaris-specific consolidation that is irrelevant to this discussion.
| Or, if your project is targetting an OpenSolaris consolidation, you are
| obliged to engage in open review from a sufficiently early point that
| everyone has the opportunity to participate and to meaningfully advise
| your project team.
- WESOLOWSKI <20070605221545.GE472012 at sun.com>
| [W]hen one contemplates the Nexenta example, it becomes much clearer
| that these secret codebases have to be treated as opaque objects
| irrelevant to and separate from OpenSolaris.
- WESOLOWSKI <20070606193217.GA710356 at sun.com>
Nobody seems to have substantively disagreed with these statements, yet
we continue to argue that there is some imagined need for closed review.
Closed projects don't belong in an OpenSolaris consolidation. Can we
agree and move on?
-j
