Mailing-List: contact commons-dev-help@jakarta.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: "Jakarta Commons Developers List" <commons-dev@jakarta.apache.org>
Date: Wed, 30 Jan 2002 09:13:54 -0500
From: "Geir Magnusson Jr." <geirm@optonline.net>
Subject: Re: [Logging] [VOTE] Commons Logging 1.0 Release
In-reply-to: <458473676F1AC74A84EAB2F22004DA6D1B1F2B@mail.nextance.com>
To: Jakarta Commons Developers List <commons-dev@jakarta.apache.org>
Message-id: <B87D69D2.C7C7%geirm@optonline.net>
MIME-version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
User-Agent: Microsoft-Entourage/10.0.0.1309

On 1/29/02 6:40 PM, "Scott Sanders" <ssanders@nextance.com> wrote:

>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Peter Donald [mailto:peter@apache.org]
>> 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.
>> 
> 
> http://jakarta.apache.org/commons/releases.html
> 
> Step 1:
> Announce your proposed release of a particular package to the
> jakarta-commons@jakarta.apache.org 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
becomes.

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


-- 
Geir Magnusson Jr.                       geirm@optonline.net
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:   <mailto:commons-dev-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org>
For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:commons-dev-help@jakarta.apache.org>