commons-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From robert burrell donkin <robertdon...@mac.com>
Subject Re: [Vote] ARMI to move
Date Wed, 09 Jan 2002 22:50:07 GMT
maybe the idea of a quorum for committers might be useful when calculating 
super majorities in the commons.

- robert

On Wednesday, January 9, 2002, at 08:20 PM, Scott Sanders wrote:

> So you will be proposing a change of the process so that we can
> 'discuss' it and put it to a vote?
>
> Scott
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Martin Cooper [mailto:martin.cooper@tumbleweed.com]
>> Sent: Wednesday, January 09, 2002 12:24 PM
>> To: Jakarta Commons Developers List; paulo.gaspar@krankikom.de
>> Subject: Re: [Vote] ARMI to move
>>
>>
>> I agree, the rule needs to be changed. I just counted 24
>> Commons committers. Even if we only count active committers
>> for a vote, the number already seems untenable.
>>
>> For the record, I think AltRMI coming to Commons would be "a
>> good thing". I do believe that we should follow the rules we
>> have defined for ourselves, though. So I say we define new
>> criteria for bringing a project to Commons first, and then
>> vote on AltRMI according to the new criteria.
>>
>> --
>> Martin Cooper
>>
>>
>> ----- Original Message -----
>> From: "Paulo Gaspar" <paulo.gaspar@krankikom.de>
>> To: "Jakarta Commons Developers List" <commons-dev@jakarta.apache.org>
>> Sent: Wednesday, January 09, 2002 11:25 AM
>> Subject: RE: [Vote] ARMI to move
>>
>>
>>> That should be fixed.
>>>
>>> Due to its nature, it will soon become impossible to have
>> 3/4 of all
>>> the Commons committers to pay attention to something in the
>> same week!
>>>
>>>
>>> Have fun,
>>> Paulo Gaspar
>>>
>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>> From: Scott Sanders [mailto:ssanders@nextance.com]
>>>> Sent: Wednesday, January 09, 2002 7:44 PM
>>>> To: Jakarta Commons Developers List
>>>> Subject: RE: [Vote] ARMI to move
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> According to the wesite, you are correct.  I thought it was
>>>> different.
>>>>
>>>> Scott
>>>>
>>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>>> From: Martin Cooper [mailto:martin.cooper@tumbleweed.com]
>>>>> Sent: Wednesday, January 09, 2002 10:36 AM
>>>>> To: Jakarta Commons Developers List
>>>>> Subject: Re: [Vote] ARMI to move
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> No, I don't think so. The positive super-majority is
>> based on the
>>>>> number of subproject (i.e. Commons) committers, not the
>> number of
>>>>> package (i.e. ARMI, in this case) committers. So basically, it
>>>>> needs 3/4 of all Commons committers to approve. At
>> least, that's
>>>>> how I read it.
>>>>>
>>>>> --
>>>>> Martin Cooper
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> ----- Original Message -----
>>>>> From: "Scott Sanders" <ssanders@nextance.com>
>>>>> To: "Jakarta Commons Developers List"
>>>>> <commons-dev@jakarta.apache.org>
>>>>> Sent: Wednesday, January 09, 2002 10:08 AM
>>>>> Subject: RE: [Vote] ARMI to move
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> It looks like you have the positive super majority.  We should
>>>>> wait a while longer before moving it, so any lingering
>> votes can
>>>>> come out.
>>>>>
>>>>> Scott
>>>>>
>>>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>>>> From: Martin Cooper [mailto:martin.cooper@tumbleweed.com]
>>>>>> Sent: Wednesday, January 09, 2002 10:11 AM
>>>>>> To: Jakarta Commons Developers List
>>>>>> Subject: Re: [Vote] ARMI to move
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Don't you need more active committers?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Interesting question. My initial assumption was that, yes,
>>>>> that's what
>>>>>> the rules say. However, on checking the Commons charter, it
>>>>>> doesn't actually say how many committers are required for a
>>>>>> package to be accepted (or if it does, I missed it).
>> The Jakarta
>>>>>> rules do, of course. Perhaps this is something we
>> should define?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The vote for acceptance, however, is well defined as
>> a positive
>>>>>> super-majority.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> --
>>>>>> Martin Cooper
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> ----- Original Message -----
>>>>>> From: "Geir Magnusson Jr." <geirm@optonline.net>
>>>>>> To: "Jakarta Commons Developers List"
>>>>> <commons-dev@jakarta.apache.org>
>>>>>> Sent: Monday, January 07, 2002 7:50 PM
>>>>>> Subject: Re: [Vote] ARMI to move
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Don't you need more active committers?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 1/6/02 6:35 PM, "Paul Hammant" <Paul_Hammant@yahoo.com>
>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Folks,
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>> http://cvs.apache.org/viewcvs/jakarta-commons-sandbox/armi/
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I have done a lot of work on ARMI and think it is time
>>>>>> for me to ask
>>>>>>>> committers to vote for a move of this tool from 'sandbox'
>>>>>> in to the
>>>>>>>> main CVS tree.  It also needs a rename (ARMI is already
>>>>>> used in the
>>>>>>>> context of Java by another academic team).  Please do not
>>>>>> think of
>>>>>>>> this as a full replacement for RMI.  It is merely an
>>>>> alternative
>>>>>>>> that bizarely might be most useful (to Avalon) entirely
>>>>>> inside one
>>>>>>>> VM.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> With respect to the rename, I think FacadePublisher gives
>>>>>> the most
>>>>>>>> meaning, but is not snappy.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Now, I guess I have no vote myself as I am only a
>> committer
>>>>>>>> to 'soapbox' but I would be interested to know if know the
>>>>>> outcome of a
>>>>>>>> vote from those that do......
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Two votes:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> 1) for ARMI being renamed to FacadePublisher (or other)
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> 2) for migrating from 'soapbox' to main CVS.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Thanks in advance....
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Regards,
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> - Paul H
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail:
>>>>>> <mailto:commons-dev-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org>
>>>>>>>> For additional commands, e-mail:
>>>>>> <mailto:commons-dev-help@jakarta.apache.org>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>> Geir Magnusson Jr.
>>>>>> geirm@optonline.net
>>>>>>> System and Software Consulting
>>>>>>> "He who throws mud only loses ground." - Fat Albert
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail:
>>>>>> <mailto:commons-dev-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org>
>>>>>>> For additional commands, e-mail:
>>>>>> <mailto:commons-dev-help@jakarta.apache.org>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> --
>>>>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail:
>>>>>> <mailto:commons-dev-> unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org> For
>>>>>> additional commands,
>>>>>> e-mail: <mailto:commons-dev-help@jakarta.apache.org>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> --
>>>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail:
>>>>> <mailto:commons-dev-> unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org>
>>>>> For
>>>>> additional commands,
>>>>> e-mail: <mailto:commons-dev-help@jakarta.apache.org>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> --
>>>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail:
>>>>> <mailto:commons-dev-> unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org>
>>>>> For
>>>>> additional commands,
>>>>> e-mail: <mailto:commons-dev-help@jakarta.apache.org>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail:
>>> <mailto:commons-dev-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org>
>>> For additional commands, e-mail:
>>> <mailto:commons-dev-help@jakarta.apache.org>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail:
>> <mailto:commons-dev-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org>
>>> For additional commands, e-mail:
>> <mailto:commons-dev-help@jakarta.apache.org>
>>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail:
>> <mailto:commons-dev-> unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org>
>> For
>> additional commands,
>> e-mail: <mailto:commons-dev-help@jakarta.apache.org>
>>
>>
>
> --
> To unsubscribe, e-mail:   <mailto:commons-dev-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.
> org>
> For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:commons-dev-help@jakarta.apache.
> org>
>


--
To unsubscribe, e-mail:   <mailto:commons-dev-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org>
For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:commons-dev-help@jakarta.apache.org>


Mime
View raw message