ant-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Peter Donald <>
Subject Re: Jakarta PMC Meeting Agenda / Info
Date Mon, 15 Jan 2001 03:08:17 GMT
At 04:00  14/1/01 -0800, James Duncan Davidson wrote:
>The Jakarta Project encompasses several things. It was created to serve as a
>home for Tomcat and a place for many of the projects to
>land. Ant isn't really part of the raison d'etre of Jakarta, and never was.
>Now that it's received some degree of success, it's time for it to breathe
>on its own and not under the Jakarta project where it can be forgotten.
>There's a couple of alternatives to this:
>    1) Ant could become a top level Apache project -- on par with
>       Jakarta, httpd, apr, xml, and others. Or, somewhat related
>       could form the seed for a new project that dealt with
>       software dev tools (like the tinderbox stuff that Sam has
>       worked on).

I like the idea of (well okay a sexier name would be better).

>> What exactly is encompassed by "day to day operations"? Does it include
>> technical decisions and directions? As each Jakarta project has a group of
>> committers, for whom there is already a decision making framework, could
>> not this group form the leaf of the "responsibility hierarchy" If this is
>> not the case, then what is the role of the committers in decision making?
>Day to day operations is pretty much defined as just that. Read the ASF by
>laws for an idea. Process, procedure, direction, goals, etc.
>When all of the committers are in agreement, it's easy to say that there
>isn't a need for a "leader". However, when you have things like the Tomcat
>3.x --> 4.x happenstances where not everybody is willing to go with the
>decisions that have been made, then you really need a person with whom the
>"buck stops".

How much say does this person have. If they disagree with decision X can
they claim that the group never reached a consensus and then overide them.
Leaders are only accepted if they earn the position and continue earning
the position. Trying to institute forced leaders (ie non-benevolent
dictators) is one sure way of killing a project. 

You keep comparing yourself to famous benevolent dictators but you are not
even vaguely comparable to them - You abandoned the project and then came
back. When you came back you did some atrocious things, insulted a whole
bunch of people and generally lost the respect of the group. The successful
benevolent dictators are inclusive and want input generally while you had a
"vision" and anything outside was "wrong". Your continued developement of
Ant spec outside ant-dev with your own copyrights splattered across them
makes me even more reluctent to trust that you have the best intentions of
Ant at stake.



| "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