[arc-discuss] Requesting PSARC/2007/124 details

[Keith M Wesolowski]

On Wed, Mar 28, 2007 at 03:07:15PM -0400, James Carlson wrote:

> The problem is that this isn't the right forum.  Instead, I think you
> need to address the ON Community itself.  The rule you're effectively
> proposing -- "no ON integration into the open source part of the tree
> based on closed ARC cases" -- makes eminent sense to me.  It's just
> not an architectural issue.

That's partly true, and I agree that the consolidation sponsors and
C-teams need to be involved with respect to integration.  However, the
ARCs could also refuse to hear closed cases that don't meet one of the
following two tests:

(1) Implementation of the architectural changes proposed is to be
contained entirely within closed code, and none of the changes
proposed affects an interface with a commitment level above Project
Private (or, in the case of entire consolidations which have no open
code, Consolidation Private) - that is, it's not permissible for open
code to consume the interface anyway, or

(2) The architecture being presented necessarily and unavoidably
refers to restricted third-party property, and there is no reasonable
and practical way to split the case to allow for separate review of
those details.

It should not be difficult to expect submitters of closed cases to
provide a brief statement justifying their decision to do so.  IMO
this should be an integral part of the transition to open-by-default.
This restriction would alleviate the need to move a case into the open
later (which entails additional work and precludes open review in the
first place) in response to a C-team's requirements.  Enforcing the
rule at integration ensures that the materials and opinion (if any)
will be available for subsequent reference.  Enforcing it at case
creation time ensures that the review itself will be conducted openly.

-- 
Keith M Wesolowski		"Sir, we're surrounded!" 
FishWorks			"Excellent; we can attack in any direction!"