Joerg Schilling wrote: > "Shawn Walker" <swalker at opensolaris.org> wrote: > >> On Tue, Mar 11, 2008 at 8:06 AM, Joerg Schilling >> <Joerg.Schilling at fokus.fraunhofer.de> wrote: >>> Darren J Moffat <Darren.Moffat at Sun.COM> wrote: >>> >>> > > Repeat after me: "If /usr/include/schily/ is unacceptable in >>> OpenSolaris I >>> > > will first need to remove /usr/include/ast". >>> > >>> > John was actually trying to HELP star get integrated by suggesting that >>> > the issue of the include files be dealt with in another case where an >>> > appropriate discussion can be had. >>> >>> If he tried to help, he is a master in hiding this fact ;-) >> Joerg, please stop assuming people do not want to help. >> >> I think it was a misunderstanding on your part as I clearly understood >> John was trying to help. > > People who try to help usually do not use a harsh tone.....
In PSARC language "NOT THIS CASE" is like a lawyer shouting "OBJECTION" in court. "OBJECTION" I find quite harsh in normal day to day English. It is well know (to ARC members and those who have used the process before) to mean lets stay focused on what this case needs to do to deliver. If an ARC member is saying it it is usually because they want to see the case converge and complete as is (or with the already agreed to changes) and don't want the scope of the case expanded. Similarly if a project team member is saying it they are asking the ARC to not try and expand the scope of the case under review (often because there is a follow on case to come). Maybe we need a "cheat sheet" to ARC language on the ARC community pages. Other things to cover are "derailed" etc. -- Darren J Moffat
