Mark, I also had to leave the meeting before it was finished (11:05 in my case), so I missed the vote also. I see from Mark Carlson's email that it was a 'straw poll'.
There seem to be deeper questions here. Are we the "Open ARC" or the "OpenSolaris ARC"? Java products get delivered on platforms without man pages. If we are reviewing products specifically for OpenSolaris as a port and platform, then we can certainly add stability classifications and require man pages if we wish. Obviously, we cannot and should not force this taxonomy back onto or into the FOSS project; why would a Linux or Windows developer care? It's a Solaris artifact. However, once upon a time, I was a member of LSARC as a Sun employee. In that context, we were reviewing Java products for delivery on multiple platforms, and I would argue that Java classifications would be appropriate, delivered in javadoc. We've hit this question over and over for years: how does the ARC provide a service for products delivered on a variety of platforms, according to the Java promise of "write once, run anywhere"? I agree with John that further discussion is merited, and it seems like a case is appropriate. But we need to figure out if we are an ARC for FOSS, or an ARC for OpenSolaris. Or perhaps someone knows, and can tell me :-) -tdc On May 20, 2009, at 9:46 AM, John Fischer wrote: > Mark, > > Unfortunately, quorum is 5 and there were 4 with only 3 voting. > Unfortunately, I had to leave the meeting before the vote was taken. > Had I voted it would have been a tie vote which would have required > the chair to cast the still quorum lacking deciding vote. So as it > stands I do not think that a precedent can be set as quorum was not > met and might be a reason to appeal the case. > > The question is whether or not the trove case is approved. If it > can be considered approve then the question is whether or not the > committee wants to try and set a precedence. I am a little hesitant > to state that trove is approved especially with so much discussion > still occurring. Although the opinion review by the ARC community > at large is supposed to help clarify and commit to the precedent. > Since it appears that the community is not ready to do so then the > originating committee needs to rethink or discuss the topic. > > Thus I think that you are correct further discussion does seem to be > in order and required. > > Thanks, > > John > > Mark Martin wrote: >> I was debating bringing a case to propose new stability >> communication norms for particular classifications of projects >> (i.e. Java libraries). Rather than debate the specifics of that >> case at this moment, I'd like to determine if this would be prudent >> procedurally. I know the LSARC intends to use trove as a precedent >> setting case, but I suspect a longer discussion is warranted to >> solve the generic problem of: >> FOSS ports that have no stability expectations expressed in any >> form (or do, but with a different taxonomy) >> FOSS ports that have different user expectations for documentation. >> (i.e. man vs. Xdoc) >> I'm basing this concern on the fact that there was no quorum during >> the vote (does this matter?), and it still seems like there's a bit >> of uncertainty in the opinion. >> Should I attempt this, or should I let the Trove case ride? >> _______________________________________________ >> opensolaris-arc mailing list >> opensolaris-arc at opensolaris.org > _______________________________________________ > opensolaris-arc mailing list > opensolaris-arc at opensolaris.org >
