> Wait a minute. The Indiana folks work for Sun. The ARC folks work for
> Sun. What member of the executive management do we have to wrangle to
> get Indiana folks to participate in ARC.
What makes you think the Indiana folks don't plan to come to the ARC?
Frankly, the project is still in its infancy, at least from my
perspective. Yes, we would have like to have come earlier ("early and
often") and we're still planning on coming as soon as we can but we
have no intention of not participating or bypassing the ARC.
> That said, the last two Indiana releases have been "Preview" releases,
> and their absence at ARC may not be an accurate indication of their
> intentions prior to full release.
Exactly - they represent a work in progress and again from my
perspective we're still in the early days of the project.
> It would be helpful to hear what the intentions are from one or more of
> the Indiana project leaders. It may simply be that ARC is viewed by
> Indiana folks (inaccurately) as an ON-only entity, and therefore somehow
> inapplicable for projects that aren't yet ready for ON.
The intention as far as I'm concerned is that all of the various
aspects of Indiana will come to the ARC (as early as we can and likely
more than once!) and get approval prior to the relevant
changes/components integrating into the Nevada consolidations.
> I still believe ARC early and ARC often should apply here, but maybe the
> Indiana folks don't realize that they can (and should!) come to ARC for
> inception, and/or umbrella review even before they have made up their
> minds on all the details.
There have been a few discussions earlier already with PSARC; Dave
Miner spoke about the installer roadmap last year and I also came to
discuss some of the intentions around modernization. Stephen has a
one-pager for IPS that's under review and I plan to send submit an
umbrella one-pager shortly as well.
dsc
