Jim Walker writes: > Also, does this account for the fact that most if not all > of these are separate FOSS projects with various licensing? > > I think it is better to port these separately then > combine them like Drools LSARC/2008/748 did.
This discussion is certainly hitting on some important issues with this project, and things that ought to be brought up with the project team, but I would like to raise a point of order here: this is an ARC opinion review. It's a review of the opinion as a written record of what was reviewed and what the ARC and project team said in that review. It's not a review of the project itself. If folks have problems with the project as specified, the right path to follow is to contact the project team first to see whether they're willing to make changes. If not, then the appeals process for ARC cases should be followed. (And, yes, the appeals process is still broken for OpenSolaris. Perhaps John Plocher could speak up about what an appropriate looking process would look like. Maybe require a regular +/- OpenSolaris community vote to initiate the SAC-level appeal, in lieu of having Director or DE sponsorship, and then an OGB vote for CTO-level appeal, in lieu of a VP or Fellow sponsor.) -- 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
