ant-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "James Cook" <>
Subject RE: Whoa Bessie... Was -- Re: [Proposal] AntFarm
Date Tue, 19 Dec 2000 05:22:05 GMT
> -----Original Message-----
> From: James Duncan Davidson []
> > So who gets to define what is Ant? Is that you?
> Bluntly, yes. With the help of a lot of people. But where there's
> disagreement... Who defined Cocoon. Stefano. Who defines Apache 2.0? Ryan.
> Who defines Perl? Larry Wall. There's a pattern there. Collaborative
> development still needs a lead.

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.

"Any Developer may vote on any issue or action item. However, the only
binding votes are those cast by a Committer. If the vote is about a change
to the source code or documentation and the primary author is a Developer
and not a Commiter, the primary author of what is being changed may also
cast a binding vote on that issue."

Perhaps an architectual direction is exempt from the same voting rules. If
so, one would beg the question, "Why submit proposals?".

I have read all I can get my hands on about AntEater (which is primarily the
source code and a couple of introductory emails from the list), and I don't
find it very progressive. Not very different from the current code. I didn't
see anything that would warrant Ant was more like Ant 1.3. I'm sure
there is more to AntEater, but I have not seen it, nor can I divine a
profound vision from what I have read.

If James is entitled to assume the leadership regarding what will become Ant
2.0, we would appreciate it if you reviewed the proposals submitted and
write your comment about the designs. I'm even interested in whether you
have looked beyond your proposal and considered the point of views of
others. I hope you have, and I hope this group can come together to pick the
future direction of Ant in a consensus.

Can we list those people who have voting authority (committer status) on
future proposal issues?

1. James Duncan Davidson (Chairman of PMC)
2. ?

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


View raw message