[arc-discuss] ARC Community organization

[Brian Gupta]

On Nov 12, 2007 4:28 PM, Darren Reed <Darren.Reed at sun.com> wrote:
> John Plocher wrote:
>
> >....
> >FastTracks
> >
> >       Fasttracks are projects that are simple and not expected to be
> >       controversial, whose approval is ASSUMED. They have a week-long timer
> >       for discussion; when it expires, the case is approved.  During that
> >       week, a Core Contributer can choose to do several things:
> >
> >           * They can ask to derail the fasttrack because it isn't simple or
> >             because it is controversial. This action morphs the case into a
> >             full review case (see below)
> >           * They can ask for more time on the timer.
> >           * They can stop the timer by requesting more information
> >             ("NEED SPEC") from the submitter and/or project team (and,
> >             obviously, restart it when the materials are provided).
> >
> >       NON-VOTING participants (contributers, interns, observers and project
> >       team members are free to ask questions, provide clarifications and
> >       otherwise discuss the architectural implications of the proposal
> >       (keeping in mind the REVIEW nature of the discussion); they, however,
> >       do NOT have the abilities noted above, which are reserved for Core
> >       Contributers.
> >
> >
>
> John,
>
> I'd like to see more discussion on the "timeout" for fast tracks.
>
> Some people file fast tracks on Monday/Tuesday and expect them
> to be approved on Wednesday if nobody sends any email for discussion
> or even set the timeout to be shorter than one week.
>
> To me this expectation seems to be abuse of the PSARC meeting
> as a way to have fast tracks approved more quickly than they
> otherwise should, making it more difficult for proposals to be
> properly evaluated.  I'd prefer to see fast tracks that are not "closed
> automatic approval" (i.e those that aren't really obvious) have a
> minimum lifetime - maybe 3 business days?  Or simply state that
> only fast tracks filed the previous week are eligable for premature
> approval?  I understand that this might get in the way, from time to
> time, of an urgent change that needs to get in, but it is rare that
> such hasty engineering is actually good.

I would like to voice my opinion that premature approval seems to be a
risky area. I have seen it used, and cause confusion due to delays
regarding timezones, and sleep schedules.

IE: Something was approved, where at least one person seemed to have a
valid case for a full review, but because the window to put in counter
arguements for derailment was so short, it didn't happen. (It was also
argued that the short timeframe didn't give time for the community to
read and understand the implications of the proposal.)

-Brian

> Darren
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> arc-discuss mailing list
> arc-discuss at opensolaris.org
> http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/arc-discuss
>



-- 
- Brian Gupta

http://opensolaris.org/os/project/nycosug/