apr-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From r..@apache.org
Subject Re: APR "charter" (was: El-Kabong -- HTML Parser)
Date Tue, 27 Aug 2002 21:52:25 GMT

I want to be very clear.  We agreed on a charter a few years ago, that
charter does not allow for things like apr-serf and apr-html.  If we want
to extend ourselves to those projects, then we should re-visit the
charter.  I am NOT saying that we shouldn't re-visit the charter, only
that we shouldn't decide to include the projects until we have re-visited
the charter.

I want to know what we are working on before we take on more stuff,
because the assumption right now that many members have is that APR is
about any portable library.  If that is the case, then let's all agree to
that first.  If that isn't the case, then let's figure out what exactly we
are working on.

The rest of my message is my opinion.  APR should be about writing a
portable run-time.  Anything else is clouding what we are trying to do.


On 27 Aug 2002, Karl Fogel wrote:

> If there is disagreement among developers about what the APR
> project(s) should do, then it has to be worked out like any other
> disagreement.  But using the charter as a *justification* for one's
> position about APR's scope is circular, or at least semi-circular :-).
> It's only appropriate to treat charters as restrictive when resources
> are finite.  For example, non-profit organizations have to respect
> their charters in a specific legal way, because people who donated
> money might be upset to see it used for something other than what they
> donated it for.
> But APR is a different kind of situation.  Everyone who has put time
> into APR has reaped the results of their work already -- all those
> past revisions, releases, and branches are available to anyone who now
> wants to steer the project (or a copy of the project) according to
> their own vision.  Likewise, no one can claim to have lost anything if
> a majority of developers choose to develop *this* copy of APR along
> lines unforseen a year ago.
> Thus, Ryan, I don't see any justification for viewing the charter as
> anything but a description, perhaps now out-of-date, of what APR
> intends to be.  We must decide *today* where APR is going, based on
> our experiences so far, and where there is disagreement, it has to be
> resolved through discussion, as with any other disagreement.  Invoking
> the charter as an authority is simply missing the point.
> -Karl


Ryan Bloom                        	rbb@apache.org
550 Jean St
Oakland CA 94610

View raw message