ant-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From James Duncan Davidson <>
Subject So, The Show Must Go On
Date Wed, 17 Jan 2001 09:29:33 GMT
On 1/14/01 8:13 AM, "Sam Ruby" <> wrote:

> The question isn't whether the originator should walk away.  But what
> should happen if the originator *does* walk away, and then wishes to start
> calling the shots again?

Then, according to our rules, the majority of committers gets to decide
where to take the project.
> An equally valid question is: what say in the future of ant do the keepers
> of the flame for all this time have?

That is an equally valid question.

It isn't fair to Stefan, Conner, et al just as it isn't fair to me. The
question is which is more fair? Neither really. However, according to our
rules, those that make up the ASF, those that have been upheld by members of
the board -- the majority of committers decides the future of the project.
In addition to that view is the additional one that, at some point, somebody
has to bend and give way. Something has to give for the future of the
project. Once again, which is more fair? In the absence of any notion of
which is fair, we are left with few alternatives. And in any case, it's
really not about which is "fair", it's about the approach that follows the
rules of the ASF. There are not many rules in the ASF, but they do provide

Given the above, it's clear that there is only one action left -- and that
is for me to reiterate that it is the right of the majority of the
committers here to determine the future of Ant. It's not up to me to agree
or disagree with the actions that are taken, only to uphold that this is the
course of action that will be followed and to make sure that the rules are

Technically I don't agree with most of the future directions spoken here,
but if I disagree technically, that's my business and if I want to scratch
that itch, I have every right to scratch it as I wish. If I do scratch that
itch and a majority of committers here like it, great, it can be adopted.
However if they don't, then that's ok too.

Given all of the above -- here's what I'm going to do. Ant, and the name
Ant, is definitely in the hands of Stefan, Conner, and the other active
committers. Of course, the ASF owns the name Ant and the codebase, but the
delegation of the responsibility lays here in the committers hands. In the
interest of making sure that Ant goes on smoothly, I'm going to bow out,
excepting my responsibilities as PMC chair to make sure that the ASF rules
are followed. Something/body has to bend and in the hope that it will be
best for this codebase, I'm going to be the bendee. (If I can't do it
myself, then I can't ask anybody else to do it as well.) Ant 2.0 will be
defined by whatever course of action the active developers take. It's in
your hands. It always was.

Do I like taking this step? Nah. Not really. But whatever. It's the way that
it works. If we're gonna have rules, I have to play by them as well.

I will most likely continue to play in the 'build software' arena as there
are technical ideas that I'd like to explore. Those ideas will of course be
open source and any and all are free to use them. Maybe you'll like them
enough to warrant consideration -- and if you do, then we'll have that
conversation in the future. If not, well, that's the way things work.


James Duncan Davidson                              
                                                                  !try; do()

View raw message