I'm on sabbatical, so maybe all of this doesn't count. Nonetheless, I'm
unhappy that they still don't seem to have addressed a few (IMO) key issues.
a) Disconnect between software installed on the system, and
documentation presented. (I.e. examples can come from wrong versions of
Solaris, etc.) I worry that users can be presented with information
that is incorrect for their system, without any way of knowing that this
is the case.
b) The inability for 3rd parties to contribute to the documentation
repository without Sun's involvement. I consider this a critical
failing for an "OpenSolaris.org" project. (Maybe this should have been
run as an entirely closed case, with no pretense about being open.)
Hosting on OpenSolaris.org (instead of .com), and allowing other
community members to help manage the content would have alleviated that
concern. The method by which ISVs and other parties add to the
documentation repository needs to at least be spelled out, even if it
*is* with Sun's intervention.
Additionally after looking at the screen shot:
c) The screen shot seems to indicate rather loose integration with
the desktop. The application doesn't seem to fit within the desktop
fit-and-feel (e.g. it doesn't look like it uses the stock widgets). The
toolbar integration looks (to me at least) like it is just an icon on
the toolbar that fires off the Java app, rather than a first class
resident of the toolbar (where the actual text entry widget would live
in the toolbar itself.) ISTR that the project team indicated that this
project had been reviewed by the appropriate UI folks -- are the other
ARC members satisfied? (I'm not enough of an expert here to have a
strong opinion about UI one way or the other....)
So, that said, I suppose I *could* be prepared to vote even without
answers to the above concerns, but the project team might prefer that I
didn't vote, at least not unless the project included TCRs to address
first two items.
-- Garrett
James Carlson wrote:
> The project team has asked that the ARC members review new materials
> in order to determine whether a formal commitment review is necessary.
>
> I've advised them to schedule a regular review, but I've also agreed
> to help them with this request, so I ask that all members expecting to
> vote on this case please review the updated documents in the
> 'post-inception.materials' directory, and then respond with an
> indication of whether you'd be ready to vote.
>
> Please provide a response either way by Tuesday, February 10th, so
> that we can have a vote in ARC business on the 11th.
>
> (I'm not asking for detailed issues or review comments; just an
> indication of whether you could vote on the materials as-is without a
> meeting. I'll call a vote if everyone agrees that they're ready.)
>
>
