commons-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Geir Magnusson Jr." <>
Subject Re: [Logging] [VOTE] Commons Logging 1.0 Release
Date Wed, 30 Jan 2002 14:13:54 GMT
On 1/29/02 6:40 PM, "Scott Sanders" <> wrote:

>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Peter Donald []
>> Sent: Tuesday, January 29, 2002 3:11 PM
>> To: Jakarta Commons Developers List
>> Subject: Re: [Logging] [VOTE] Commons Logging 1.0 Release
>> On Wed, 30 Jan 2002 09:28, Remy Maucherat wrote:
>>> If we both want to move forward, I think now that you got
>> your quote, 
>>> you should withdraw your -1.
>> Actually I think if "we" want to move forward I should add my
>> -1. That way it 
>> may become even more obvious what an absurd rule allows
>> people to vote on
>> something they dont use/develope and never plant to use/develope.
> Step 1:
> Announce your proposed release of a particular package to the
> mailing list, and ask for a vote. Per
> the Commons Project charter, votes of committers on the particular
> package in question (as listed in the STATUS.html file) are binding.
> According to this, the binding votes for a release will be from:
>   *  Morgan Delagrange
>   * Rodney Waldhoff
>   * Craig McClanahan
>   * Robert Burrell Donkin
>   * Scott Sanders
> I'm sorry Peter, but you're not on the list ;-)

And he was one commit of a STATUS file away, which I see now he did.

This might be something we can finally fix?  I think Peter's actions are a
good illustration of the problems with this experiment in community.

I still like the idea that as a group we can decide what goes into commons -
I believe that we all should play a role in deciding what commons is and

However, once a component is added, lets drop this silly 'commit to the
STATUS file' gate, and use the conventional approach?  In terms of effect, I
would bet nothing really changes - I am sure anyone who shows commitment,
interest and competence with a component will be granted committer status -
and there are enough of us around here to apply peer pressure in case
something gets tangled due to personality or some such tangential issue.

As for me, while I have misgivings about components logging to a commons
logging component, my time to affect things is past - I had my chance when
we first decided to bring it into commons, which I voted +1 for, and since
then, where I could have participated and shaped it by participating in the
component.  I had a comment here and there, lots of unspoken/unwritten
thoughts about it, but that's my problem.

So if the committers of the project are fine with the release, none of us
should second-guess them.  Of course, just add yourself to STATUS if you
want to - that's perfectly allowed. :)

I would bet Peter has now effectively made his point, and we can thank him
for clearly demonstrating a wrinkle in our governance model.


Geir Magnusson Jr.             
System and Software Consulting
You're going to end up getting pissed at your software
anyway, so you might as well not pay for it. Try Open Source.

To unsubscribe, e-mail:   <>
For additional commands, e-mail: <>

View raw message