Alan Coopersmith wrote:
> Garrett D'Amore wrote:
>> Because, otherwise, if you don't provide a forum for them to get ARC
>> input early, then they won't get it.
>
> There's a well honored tradition at Sun of asking individual ARC members
> or people with much ARC case sponsoring experience for advice before
> filing
> cases for formal review. There's nothing to stop projects which
> don't want
> open review before a certain point from continuing to do so, even
> going to Sun's
> existing closed ARCs for advice, knowing that many of the members are
> the same
> (at least for now) as the OpenSolaris ARC community, or to whatever
> subset of the OpenSolaris ARC was covered by whatever NDA is
> restricting this materials,
> but nothing would be binding for OpenSolaris integration until they go
> to the
> OpenSolaris ARC. (But nothing from inception review is typically
> binding
> either, as the ARC can change its mind at commitment due to new
> information,
> changes in ARC membership, things they've learned from other cases in the
> meantime, or even just how much caffeinated beverages are available to
> the
> ARC members at review time.)
>
> As noted in the quoted Constitutional bits elsewhere in this thread, the
> current OpenSolaris contributors already voted to disallow making
> decisions
> behind closed doors - we can't undo that without having them all vote
> on a new
> constitutional amendment.
All good points. Maybe we just allow the time-honored tradition to
continue. But then what is the point of doing an inception review?
I do think that we need to consider an amendment that allows for
closed-door decisions/work. There are plenty of good reasons why the
organization might need to restrict the information it disseminates, and
if we are constitutionally forbidden from it, it may prevent the
organization from engaging with certain other external organizations.
For example, getting early security notifications and coordination from
CERT may require someone from the organization to sign an NDA.
-- Garrett
