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 Fri, 01 Feb 2002 23:21:31 GMT
Nice, well-thought out post.  I was a 'Peter' then and now.

It would be interesting to understand why you claim the so-called 'CLOSED
MODEL' restricts creativity and progress, as this is the model that Apache
has used successfully (so it appears).


On 2/1/02 6:16 PM, "Morgan Delagrange" <> wrote:

> ----- 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: <>

Geir Magnusson Jr.                           
System and Software Consulting
"He who throws mud only loses ground." - Fat Albert

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

View raw message