ant-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Peter Donald <>
Subject RE: Whoa Bessie... Was -- Re: [Proposal] AntFarm
Date Tue, 19 Dec 2000 07:04:48 GMT
At 12:22  19/12/00 -0500, you wrote:
>Frankly this bothers me. I spent some quality time creating an interesting
>(my opinion) alternative proposal for Ant 2.0, and now I am reading that the
>long-absent grandfather of Ant 1.0 has come back to dictate his vision to
>the group. I am new to opensource, but I don't get it. It seems to run
>counter to my interpretation of the Jakarta constitution.

it does - he proposes something countered to meritocracy which Apache is
based upon. It is unfortunate for him that he didn't host it at x180 if he
wanted that absolute rule but he didn't so it matters little.

>Can we list those people who have voting authority (committer status) on
>future proposal issues?
>1. James Duncan Davidson (Chairman of PMC)
>2. ?

Essentially everyone you see who has committed recently + Sam Ruby. I a
guess there is probably other developers who will come out of woodwork to
discuss next version of ant thou ;)

>I think that proposal authors should also get voting rights. (Just to clear
>up any cloaked agenda, I submitted frANTic

They do - it's an implict +1 from what I understand.

>I feel that any
>developer on the list should get a non-binding vote, to ensure that their
>opinions are heard. I think that is what the Jakarta "rules" imply as well.

Yep essentially.



| "Faced with the choice between changing one's mind, |
| and proving that there is no need to do so - almost |
| everyone gets busy on the proof."                   |
|              - John Kenneth Galbraith               |

View raw message