ant-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Jon Stevens <...@latchkey.com>
Subject Re: Analyzing Bessie (Was: Whoa Bessie...)
Date Wed, 20 Dec 2000 04:40:05 GMT
on 12/19/2000 7:44 PM, "Jason Hunter" <jhunter@collab.net> wrote:

> This situation with internal forks is hard because who gets to have the
> fork with the original name?  I think in the situation where such a
> decision needs to be made it should be decided by the overseeing PMC.

This is the final real question in your excellent analysis. Therefore it is
most interesting to me.

Given that James is not only the President of the PMC, but there are other
people on it like myself who no one likes at this point so whatever decision
I make, everyone will hate me for it. :-) There are also people on the PMC
whom I think might not really care about the future of Ant as much as the
people on this list do.

As a result, I'm not certain that the PMC is the right choice for doing the
vote. It would be similar to trying to hold a meeting to decide futures in
the states and not inviting all the European people (note that wasn't my
intention for the meeting at all...I just need to clarify that for all you
people who still don't get it).

It would also be giving a group that may not have the technical best
knowledge of the proposals (or the time to go back and read all the archives
of the list) the decision over what the future should be. Not good IMHO.

Anyway, my personal opinion, which no one probably wants to hear at this
point, is that I think that things have progressed far enough down this path
of hell that it will have to be up to the entire list to focus and come up
with an agreeable solution that everyone likes. This is actually what I
wanted to do with the in person meeting: assuming enough of the core people
could have had made it.

I will say that some people, especially those who have contributed
proposals, should be open enough to not having their entire proposals
accepted. I would assume that the entire proposals are not horrible, but
instead have good ideas mixed in with some not so good ideas. Thus, I would
want to see the people with the proposals try to push their good ideas into
one unified proposal that everyone likes.

So, maybe one way to start this off would be to get everyone who has done a
proposal to come up with a list of their favorite ideas and then gather
those together into a master "wish list". This could also serve as a nice
functional specification document (FSD). Then, once that is done, people can
work together on an implementation of the FSD because they have an agreement
on what the FS should be. It would need to be agreed in advance that this
FSD and implementation would then become Ant 2.0.

This is what I suggested to James on the phone yesterday and is still what I
think the best route is.

thanks,

-jon

-- 
Honk if you love peace and quiet.


Mime
View raw message