Hitendra Zhangada writes: > I totally agree with this but if ARC members do not review the > fast-track material/proposal then that is of no fault of the project > team or the case submitter.
I agree. The fine line that's being walked here is between punishing that project's management team for not providing sufficient ARC resources (a concept that could possibly work within Sun, but that's much more tenuous in OpenSolaris -- who are the "managers?") and tromping on the victim projects. But what else can the ARC do, other than refusing to accept responsibility for cases it cannot fairly review? > I think the responsibility of getting a > case reviewed should be on the case sponsor. The proposal already addresses that -- one timeout, then the sponsor tries to help, and the proposal dies after another week. I don't think the sponsor has the final responsibility here, though. Everything always falls back to the project team: it's their project, and if they want it to go forward, they'll have to do the leg work. That's always true in reviews -- not just architecture, but any other review. The project team has to drive it forward, and can't expect others to carry the load. > If the case sponsor is an ARC member then does that count > as "+1" as far as the review goes? My understanding was "no." The sponsor doesn't count for the +1; it has to be reviewed by someone else. It'd be good to clarify, though. -- James Carlson, Solaris Networking <james.d.carlson at sun.com> Sun Microsystems / 35 Network Drive 71.232W Vox +1 781 442 2084 MS UBUR02-212 / Burlington MA 01803-2757 42.496N Fax +1 781 442 1677
