commons-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Geir Magnusson Jr." <ge...@optonline.net>
Subject Re: [Vote] ARMI to move
Date Thu, 10 Jan 2002 02:12:01 GMT
On 1/9/02 3:24 PM, "Martin Cooper" <martin.cooper@tumbleweed.com> wrote:

> 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.

I don't know if its a good thing, and the problem isn't the # of committers
voting on it.

The problem is that there is only one committer for the codebase.  If there
were more, then there would be no issue, and I don't think anyone would even
care if we didn't meet the required 3/4ths, as there would be enough support
for a conformant proposal.

The other solution is to modify the commons charter to specifically relax
the # of committer requirement.

(If there indeed is one - I need to review :)

> 
> --
> 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>
> 

-- 
Geir Magnusson Jr.                                     geirm@optonline.net
System and Software Consulting
"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety
deserve neither liberty nor safety." - Benjamin Franklin



--
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