On 07/27/09 02:24 AM, Alan Hargreaves wrote: > > And if this was what PSARC did, you could be right. Unfortunately we > are seeing a lot of sweeping generalisations being made here from > grossly inadequate (and quite frankly some of it is incorrect) > information. > > If you want to see what the *actual* role of the ARCs with Solaris is, > you should look at the ARC community pages at > http://opensolaris.org/os/community/arc/ > > I would certainly suggest before condemning a process that folks > should actually perhaps do a little research rather than work from > hearsay. > > I will say from my experience of being a part of the process over the > last five years is that the ARCs work harder to get things integrated > rather than to kill projects. Indeed I can't think of the last time > (if EVER) a project was killed by an ARC. > > I can't put it any better than James Carlson did, ... > > No "truce" is needed here, because there's no "battle." > > Please. Take a breath. Perhaps two. And then think about replying > again. >
+1 I constantly see too much tension between the emotional side and the logical side. Most people do not study the process very deeply before submitting an ARC case. So without that training or knowledge, all the replies are mis-interpreted on an emotional (normal human behavior lacking additional information) basis; - questions or feedback == attack or trying to block my project - derail == attack or trying to block my project. But if we first study the purpose and process of ARC, we translate to; - derail == we should schedule a meeting or vote and get some deeper consensus on this issue to ensure a quality solution - questions/feedback == attempts to seek consistency, quality, and perhaps deeper thinking of creative solutions by the dev team so that the project will have sound architectural foundation consistent with the rest of Solaris where possible. On the logical side, both of the above statements are routine design discussion, simple thought and collaboration processes. But in my 18 years here, I keep seeing far too much of the emotional side, which I suppose comes from a simple lack of understanding the purpose and process of ARC. Perhaps ARC needs to start holding an open meeting every other month that is simply a tutorial review of what ARC does, and what the terminology and lines of questions are for, and are trying to achieve? Neal > Regards, > Alan Hargreaves > (A PSARC Intern) > > > Jennifer Pioch wrote: >> On 7/26/09, James Carlson <carlsonj at workingcode.com> wrote: >> >>> On Jul 26, 2009, at 9:44 AM, Jennifer Pioch <piochjennifer at >>> googlemail.com> >>> wrote: >>> >>> >>> >>>>> On Wednesday at the PSARC meeting. Only regular PSARC members can vote. >>>>> >>>>> >>>> Who elected the PSARC members? >>>> >>>> >>> Nobody. Sun's CTO founded the ARC 19 years ago. >>> >> >> So let me get this straight: Since 19 years there is a >> company-appointed group of grey bearded gurus from Shang Gri la who >> decides about the fate of projects. Is that correct? >> >> Don't you think this is undemocratic, unfair and contradicts the >> spirit and intention of OPEN source? Going even further: >> I think the current ARC business contradicts the fundamental believes >> behind OPEN source: >> Open source means that processes, procedures and groups are OPEN to >> everyone and not some company-appointed group. >> Open source projects are either driven by democracy or meritocracy and >> not some invitation-only club for the wealthy company grey beards. >> >> Jenny >> > > -- > Alan Hargreaves - http://blogs.sun.com/tpenta > Staff Engineer (Kernel/VOSJEC/Performance) > Asia Pacific/Emerging Markets > Sun Microsystems >
