ant-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From James Duncan Davidson <dun...@x180.net>
Subject Re: Ant vs. other "ant"s (was: Re: Whoa Bessie...)
Date Thu, 28 Dec 2000 07:02:05 GMT
On 12/27/00 7:48 PM, "Sam Ruby" <rubys@us.ibm.com> wrote:

> James Duncan Davidson wrote:
>> 
>> All Open Source licenses are based on Copyright
>> Law which is based on the concept of ownership.
>> *Somebody* has to own the code. In our case it's
>> the ASF Members.
> 
> Don't stop there.  The owners have clearly laid out a process for making
> decisions, and posted it on the web at
> http://jakarta.apache.org/site/decisions.html.

However, that document says *nothing* about what to do in cases where there
are potential forks, irreconcilable differences, etc. That document was
drawn from materials which were in turn drawn from just agreeing how to
commit patches and the like -- not how to manage long term directions of
projects. We *haven't* had this particular problem before. Just pointing at
rules that were laid down prior to having this problem which, as we can see.

In particular, it doesn't say *anything* about how a Long Term Plan get's
accepted, or used or changed to a Short Term Plan or Release Plan. That part
was intentionally left fuzzy as, up until now here and on the Tomcat list,
there has been no need to have this defined -- and who owns the process.
Since it is undefined, it defaults to being the providence of the PMC.

One of the things that we'll define at the next PMC meeting is exactly how
that process happens -- and who owns that. Since we now have to deal with
it, we're going to.

> In particular, I believe the following is a false assertion:
> 
>> I think I've got a right to Ant's "vision thing".
>> Other visions are fine, but they aren't Ant imo.

According to our what's written in our rules it is neither a false or true
assertion. In fact, one of the shortcomings in our rules is that they punt
on the concept of "person responsible for a codebase" and instead defer that
to the nebulous concept of a PMC -- which, in the case of the Jakarta and
XML projects have been quiet. And now, now that it's a little late to start
saying something, it is more than time for them to say something -- which is
what the January meeting is all about.

-- 
James Duncan Davidson                                        duncan@x180.net
                                                                  !try; do()


Mime
View raw message