On Thu, May 21, 2009 at 08:52:42PM +0200, Martin Bochnig wrote: > > What *is* open is the development _process_. ?Meaning: > > > > ?- design reviews (these are not formally part of the Solaris > > ? development process nowadays, but i-teams often do these in the open) > > > > ?- architectural reviews > > > > ?- code reviews > > > > C-team review is often not conducted in the open, I think, but then > > c-team reviews are not terribly interesting from a community openness > > p.o.v. > > Ok, maybe it could even constitute a security risk to discuss all the > potential vulnerabilities in the open.
Oh, yes, I forgot to mention security vulnerabilities. Yes, those are usually reviewed not in public when the vulnerability report is not public yet (for obvious reasons). > > Unlike Linux we don't have one big kernel list with enormous traffic. > > Instead we split discussions up into multiple lists, as Liane explained. > > I like the way in which Liane responded. I was happy with it. > I also read the docs, but I cannot always read everything, can you? I never read everything. I usually work my way to the answer to whatever question I have. I use a combination of web search engines, man(1), cscope (and src.opensolaris.org), and so on to find what I'm looking for, or to find who would know; or perhaps I'll post a question on an IRC channel or mailing list. > Frequently I help others on lists like xwin-, driver- or opensolaris-. Great! > I sure know about mail.opensolaris.org. > I'm on 15 lists. > > Some are mouse dead, others are not. > I thought of on-discuss to *be* one of those specialized lists. > I thought of it as the list for the global OS/Net gatekeepers. > It sure is, but not much of those things gets discussed in the open. > That's all I objected to. I'm not a gatekeeper, so I'd not really know. I do hang out on #onnv, an internal IRC channel, which occasionally gets discussions of gatekeeping issues, but mostly is a social hangout. Perhaps we should have a #onnv on freenode. > But not being involved in any OS/Net undertaking is not equal to doing > nothing at all: Of course. Cheers, Nico --
