David.Comay at Sun.COM wrote:
>> 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?
I never said that I believed that they didn't. But it was the
presumption of the earlier mail from someone else (Joe?) that I was
commenting on.
> 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.
How early? There have been two external releases to the public.
Normally, I'd think it would be beneficial to have at least an inception
review *before* a binary (even beta, or "preview") deliver to the
public. If for no other reason that it allows for a more meaningful
two-way dialog with ARC before project team and development gets to
fixed into place.
>
>> 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.
This is good news. I'd still like to see earlier materials -- an
inception or umbrella case for major components would be useful.
>
>> 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.
Yes, I've seen the Caiman materials and its up for a 2nd inception this
week. All good. Having the same level of coverage for IPS (and
possibly other Indiana deliverables?) would be useful.
Thank you for the clarification. The umbrella case, which need not be
"approved" per se, will probably do a lot to dispel any vicious rumors
about Indiana not coming before ARC. :-) It might also help establish
expectations in members minds (at least mine) about what exactly Indiana
is delivering....
-- Garrett
>
> dsc
