On Fri, Jun 08, 2007 at 03:44:50PM -0700, Garrett D'Amore wrote: > Agreed. Although, we have to balance somewhat: > > 1) we want to make "c" hard enough that projects will endeavor to > choose "a" or "b" first. > > 2) if "c" becomes too costly, then the whole design may be done > closed, only requiring a restart (or refusal to participate) because > they missed the initial feedback that would have gotten had they taken > road "c". > > In other words, I think we want the cost of "c" to be high enough that > they choose "a" or "b" if at all possible, but not so high that they > omit the early review altogether.
Exactly. Jim's concern was that project teams (at Sun or elsewhere) would avoid early ARC reviews to stay private and then cry to mommy (management, CAB, etc...) when they get run into problems. The alternative is to empower the OpenSolaris ARCs and c-teams to say "no." Jim thinks that's risky. I think that the risk goes to zero after the first bruising experience where the open process comes out on top, so the risk may be worth taking. Additionally some folks want room for closed-ness to a point on principle, similar, I think, to Jim's point. Nico --
