commons-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Morgan Delagrange" <>
Subject Re: [Logging] [VOTE] Commons Logging 1.0 Release
Date Fri, 01 Feb 2002 23:16:47 GMT
----- Original Message -----
From: "Sam Ruby" <>
To: "Jakarta Commons Developers List" <>
Sent: Friday, February 01, 2002 4:10 PM
Subject: Re: [Logging] [VOTE] Commons Logging 1.0 Release

> Costin Manolache wrote:
> >
> > I believe we would be better served with the commons model in
> > apache/jakarta.
> That is my opinion too.
> - Sam Ruby

Which actually raises a good point.  When Commons was first proposed, many
were of the opinion that Commons is too _closed_, not too open.

Some developers proposed that all Jakarta members should get Karma to
Commons automatically.  In essence, you would have been able to commit
directly to the Commons repository at any time, even if you had made no
contributions to the Commons before.  I believe this was Costin's original
stance; I don't know if he still believes this is the best course for the
project.  For convenience's sake, let's call this the OPEN MODEL.

The other end of the spectrum was Peter's opinion: that each component
should be run like a mini Jakrata subproject, complete with separate commit
and voting rights.  We'll say this is the CLOSED MODEL.

The orginaztion which we finally agreed upon (a majority, but not a
consensus), was in-between.  You needed to earn commit rights to Commons,
but once you were in, you could commit to anything you wanted.  I suppose
you could call this "partially open", or "somewhat closed" about the
MIXED MODEL.  That was my preferred model at the time, and I still believe
that it is working quite well for us.

In my opinion, this approach builds the strongest community.  The Open Model
provides the _largest_ community, but it's really just the Jakarta community
itself, which is not always the most coherent, unified organization; in fact
we never totally agree on anything, except "SourceForge sucks".  ;)  The
Closed Model provides the _tightest_ community, but it's so small that IMO
progress and creativity would be limited.  I think the Mixed Model provides
the best compromise between size and coherence.

Anyway, the most important thing is that the current approach seems to be
_working_.  Commons components are part of a surprising number of other
projects already (thanks Gump!), and the complaints on our list about
interface changes and other incompatibilities are relatively few.  What
problem are we trying to solve?  That Peter can vote against a project if he
doesn't think it's a good idea?  To me, it seems like the Closed Model
actually causes more deadlocks than it prevents: less committers == more
influential votes.

- Morgan

P.S. About a jillion emails have rolled by since I started writing this.
How do you people find the time?!!?  Well, it looks like my email is still
relevant, so here goes...

Do You Yahoo!?
Get your free address at

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

View raw message