apr-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Greg Stein <gst...@lyra.org>
Subject Re: E-Kabong resolution: Re: acceptance of El-Kabong into APR
Date Thu, 12 Sep 2002 04:42:20 GMT
On Wed, Sep 11, 2002 at 09:52:56PM -0400, John K. Sterling wrote:
> to Rasmus' point - maybe the group should have just said 'no' instead 
> of trying to justify it (and not QUITE to  greg's point, IMHO all 
> emails from the apache group that declare a decision should be to a 
> public list)..

A simple "no" would be a disservice. It would just generate a "why?", and
we'd be back to the same spot. Further, the email to Jon was sent privately
because we felt that it *was* private. It dealt with the code donation from
Covalent, and it dealt with Jon's commit privileges. The latter part was
potentially a sensitive issue, so we didn't feel it was appropriate for
posting to a public forum without talking to Jon first. That is a simple,
common courtesy.

[ Jon's forwarding obviously meant he was fine with it, but that does not
  negate our initial obligation ]

> I am generally a blind supporter of the apache group - I have a lot of 
> respect for many members and contributors.  But I am surprised by the 
> group in this case.  Jon Travis has been submitting critical patches 
> for a few years (I believe it was one of his patches that provided MPM 
> querying a couple of years ago).  He has been involved far longer, and 
> has far better public qualifications than many of the folks who already 
> have commit access.  To look at a this piece of code (on top of all of 
> the apache/apr submissions over the years) and say he hasn't proven 
> himself is a ridiculous thing to say.....  is this all over the title 
> of a proposed apachecon talk (why apache sukks)?  or some other 
> personal vendettas?

Your points about Jon's contributions are all absolutely true. I agree. But
commit access is not a simple, "wow. great code. give him commit privs."

Suffice it to say that this issue is quite a bit more complex than that,
thus the reason it took a while to reach some kind of conclusion. There are
way too many people involved (between the httpd and apr PMCs and the board)
for this to be about any individual's issues. It is more than that (internal
issues, and in regards to E-K and Jon), and it would be inappropriate for a
public discussion, which is why it wasn't.

The ASF has a responsibility towards the community. And a lot of us feel
very strongly about that. However, that also means there are different views
on how to express and act on that responsibility. Sometimes, things just
aren't so easy...


Greg Stein, http://www.lyra.org/

View raw message