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 Sat, 02 Feb 2002 14:11:00 GMT
On 2/2/02 6:50 AM, "Ted Husted" <> wrote:

> The vote was on a release, and the vote passed.
> An issue regarding attribution was resolved. The committers are still
> honing some fine points, but the package is on it's way.
> Apparently, Peter feels that "I have been stymied by "committers" who
> vetoed things but had never done
> anywork and never intended doing any work on something. It aint
> something I am not willing to invite again."

Huh.  That wasn't my read.  Peter's "-1" seemed to be a reaction to being
told that since he wasn't in the 'STATUS file', what he said didn't much
matter as to the release.

This statement about the STATUS file was indeed in error.  However, I think
his point was well made - in a meritocracy, he shouldn't have had the
ability to do what he did.

> and so has problems with our politics.
> Personally, I would never permit any veto not based on the technical
> merits stand.

And how would you go about that?  You have no choice, do you?

Is there anything that states that voting is based on technical merits?  I
don't think so.  For example, you might not want to release something
because you think the documentation isn't ready, or the timing is bad, or
some such...

> The Committers are a jury, but there is an avenue of
> appeal. Happily, that avenue is rarely pursued.
> Since the purpose of ASF and Jakarta is to permit codebases to survive
> their developers, it is not reasonable to say that you can only vote on
> code that you developed. Eventually, we will all become custodians of
> code that we did not create, but must support and maintain.

Isn't it to survive their initial developers, to provide a mechanism through
which a merit-based community can grow?

I think that Peter demonstrated some serious issues, and we should address
them.  I suppose that others don't think there is a problem - somone
suggested that all is fine because of how well commons is doing.  I think
success is a lagging indicator.


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