commons-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Scott Sanders" <ssand...@nextance.com>
Subject RE: [Logging] [VOTE] Commons Logging 1.0 Release
Date Fri, 01 Feb 2002 22:36:13 GMT
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Peter Donald [mailto:peter@apache.org] 
> Sent: Friday, February 01, 2002 2:06 PM
> To: Jakarta Commons Developers List
> Subject: Re: [Logging] [VOTE] Commons Logging 1.0 Release
> 
> 
> On Sat, 2 Feb 2002 07:49, Scott Sanders wrote:
> > <snip/>
> >
> > > > Explicitly state it in a
> > > > proposal/vote/patch and let's do it.
> > >
> > > I have proposed it several times before. If you go back to the 
> > > original vote for commons you will see that I only started waving 
> > > the Avalon duplication
> > > flag after I was ignored on this issue for the second time. I
> > > had hoped Jon
> > > would have picked up on it and we could have forced the
> > > proposal to include
> > > this requirement but it didn't happen this way.
> >
> > I agreed with you at the time, but it didn't happen.  Now 
> we have the 
> > Commons and we have to live together here in Jakarta land.  But the 
> > general concensus that I have seen since the dual 
> introduction of Oro 
> > and Regexp is that duplication is OK.  I don't necessarily 
> agree with 
> > that, but I can see some benefits of it, so I go with the flow.
> >
> > Your concern now, besides the duplication,
> 
> my concern was never duplication ;) Other people are usually 
> concerned about 
> duplication and I was only trying to use that to get people 
> to look at the 
> management side. Usually when Jon wiffs that he goes burko 
> and I was trying 
> to incite him ;)

Cool.

> 
> > is that someone with no
> > vested interest can affect the code in some way, is this correct?
> 
> Affecting the code is fine - however having voting rights 
> over the code is 
> not fine IMHO. Just FYI I was an advocate of having an open 
> CVS where once 
> you are a committer to one jakarta project you are a 
> committer to them all. 
> However commit rights nad voting rights are not equivelent.

I can actually agree with this 100%.  If there were guidelines as to who
could vote, a committer could be a jakarta-* committer.

> 
> > I
> > would submit to you that is that person is a Commons 
> committer, they 
> > are here because they *do* have a vested interest, not only in the 
> > component they work on primarily, but also any component here.
> 
> I
> would submit to you that is that person is a Jakarta 
> committer, they are here because they *do* have a vested 
> interest, not only in the component they work on primarily, 
> but also any project here.

Big +1

> 
> I
> would submit to you that is that person is a Apache 
> committer, they are here because they *do* have a vested 
> interest, not only in the component they work on primarily, 
> but also any top level project here.
> 

+1.  

> I think all those statements have an equal chance of being true ;)
> 
> > So, again, what is your proposed solution to the problem?
> 
> Meritocracy? People earn the right to vote on a component by 
> showing merit.

I agree, so how do we make this happen in the charter?  Do you have a
proposal/patch for it?

Cheers,
Scott

> 
> -- 
> Cheers,
> 
> Pete
> 
> Doubt is not a pleasant condition, but certainty is absurd.
>                 -- Voltaire
> 
> --
> 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