Doug Leavitt writes: > Comments inline. [tale of woe elided]
> > I don't think that means that system architecture ought to be > > "designed" by having each individual project vote with its feet. > > > > That's a recipe for chaos. > > > > Agreed. It's not clear to me that projects that have a high > expectancy of support and stability should depend upon essentially > unsupported, highly volatile and unstaffed projects. Much of what you've described (at least in terms of rationale) are business issues. I can understand that the team was RIF'd, and that RPE has little interest or funding to make extensions. These things do happen. However, as a matter of system architecture alone (and that's what we're supposed to be reviewing here), I don't think that "we're out of money" is actually ever acceptable as an answer or the basis for design. It's like offering up "green" as an answer to an arithmetic question: it doesn't follow. On the grounds that there's a distinct lack of system architecture here that would allow the project team to make an informed choice (and allow the ARC to evaluate that choice), and thus this project is certainly not "obvious," I ask that either the LSARC chair grant me temporary standing here so that I can derail, or that (alternatively) an active LSARC member speak up to pull that lever. To be clear, I don't think that what the project team is doing is necessarily wrong. Maybe scrapping Solaris LDAP is the only possible answer given management's choices in this area. However, simply avoiding making any clear technical decision is not one of the viable options. At a minimum, we need to have a written opinion noting that LDAP is a fundamental system service, and that building it atop a foundation of sand is a very bad idea. -- 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
