How does PSARC take input from non-project communities?

Fri Sep 14 17:49:53 PDT 2007

James Carlson wrote:

>Rainer Heilke writes:
>  
>
>><!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN">
>>    
>>
>
>A nit, but if that can be turned off, it'd be appreciated.  It's hard
>to read email with HTML all over it.
>  
>
My apologies. Normally my email goes out as text-only. I'll double-check 
the setting (I hate HTML email too).

>>That I misunderstood something is very probable. However, there are two
>>ARC discussion forums on the forum page. The one I was following at the
>>time (<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://www.opensolaris.org/jive/forum.jspa?forumID=92">https://www.opensolaris.org/jive/forum.jspa?forumID=92</a> under
>>"Communities") ceased all discussion on April 31.
>>    
>>
>
>I'm not sure what you're talking about here.  arc-discuss (which
>you're referencing above) isn't terribly busy, but there are certainly
>still discussions going on there.  The newest I see right now is from
>August 31st, not April.
>
>It hasn't been shut down.
>  
>

Hmm. Odd. Did I grab the wrong forum? I'll double-check that, as the one 
I looked at was distinctly quiet as of April. My  apologies.  That's 
what I get for trying to respond so late at night! Thwap -> Rainer.

>>Hence a big source of
>>confusion. So, why the two different discussions, both ostensibly
>>called "ARC"? <br>
>>    
>>
>
>I agree that this is highly confusing.
>
>There are two separate lists, because one (arc-discuss) is for
>discussion about the ARC itself -- how it should be run, what issues
>it needs to address, and so on.  The other list (opensolaris-arc) is
>for the actual ARC reviews themselves.  That is, when an OpenSolaris
>project has an ARC review, you'll see the discussion traffic about
>that project on opensolaris-arc.
>
>The two lists are linked and very briefly described here:
>
>  http://www.opensolaris.org/os/community/arc/discussions/
>
>I think there was a fear that (high-volume) project review traffic
>would swamp those who want to talk about the role of the ARC, hence
>the separation.
>  
>
I see. It _does_ make sense, then, it's just not clear.

>(Having one named "arc-review" and the other named "arc-trivia" or
>some sort may have made it clearer ...)
>  
>
I think what makes them particularly confusing is that, in addition to 
the naming blur, the minimalist descriptions on the forum page are 
pretty, well, minimalist. :-) They're brief to the point of vagueness.

Thanks again for the continuing clarifications. Perhaps this can lead to 
some clearer direction for the site and other members at some point. 
Since I save all of this, I could potentially compile it into a mini-FAQ 
or something, once we've hammered it all out and I've gotten my head 
around it all.

Rainer