commons-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Gerhard Froehlich" <>
Subject RE: Adding a committer : Catch-22
Date Tue, 19 Feb 2002 19:48:48 GMT


>PMC shouldn't have to pay attention.  I am on the PMC (for the next week or
>so anyway :) but my participation in this has nothing to do with that.  I am
>a concerned commons committer, just like you.
>I think we can change things such that the PMC never has to be involved.
>That's the ideal world, for me anyway.
>Yes, people are trusted.  That's not the problem.  And as Commons is a
>Jakarta project, it is a private club - however, we can allow people that
>are not existing jakarta committers into Commons, just like any other
>subproject can.

Hmm I think it doesn't work in reality, because of the bunch of projects.
It's more a organizational problem. One project, one big clear vision.
Many projects, many visions (sometimes very personal). It's hard to share
them. That's Paul problem. He is a great developer and one of my masters I 
follow! But he fails, because AltRMI is not that popular in commons,
but this doesn't mean it's bad code, or. Remember his is doing lot of stuff
in the Avalon project and rememeber he is a trusted Jakarta-Avalon committer 
and remember he is just searching for a place to share his ideas here at Jakarta.

Commons is this place!

>The 'sissy 3 committer rule' is actually a Jakarta guideline.  Since I
>didn't have anything to do with it's creation, I can only guess at the
>reasoning - to support the Apache principle that projects should outlive
>their initial creators.  By having 3 dedicated committers, we ensure that
>something we adopt in commons will have a good chance of enduring if one of
>the committers has to put less time into it....
>As the number of commons components grow, self-management of the components
>becomes more important.  If people start to perceive that there is abandoned
>junk in it...

Yes, I see the problem. But it doesn't work and it weakens the Jakarta rules,
which are much stronger in other projects. This doesn't fit together.

>> Commons-Sandbox is kool for starting the draft and after a final
>> proposal for the first release, it's ready for commons.
>Indeed.  It's also a fun place to play in.  Try things. Abandon them.
>That's ok.

Yes, I'm doing this in the moment with Juozas and I change my orginal
proposal every week ;). But this is kool and learn much!

>> Do we need
>> another vote here? Sorry guys, but there are so many projects around
>> and honestly I can't observe them all. I have to do this selective
>> (interest and job driven)! And I have one golden rule, I don't vote
>> for things I don't know and I don't vote for committers I don't know.
>> Neither nor I do it just to fancy somebody.
>This is the problem then.
>If we all followed this, we couldn't ever add people to commons when you
>have a situation like Paul's - only he knows the person in question (we
>trust) and therefore since it's his gig...
>Suppose we made AltRMI a commons component.  So far, no commons committer in
>the months that its been there has participated, IIRC.  So now again we are
>down to Paul asking for a vote, and if we all followed your lead, he's still

Hmm but then why this rules. Following this lead, I give blind +1. Maybe I read
the Proposal, but I have no idea of the codebase and I don't know it in detail!

Ok the argument could be -> dig into the project! But let's be realistic.

>At least if we let the candidate into sandbox, he could prove himself to
>Paul, and then paul can propose AltRMI with a  set of committers in tow.
>> Solution for #1 would be to close Jakarta-Commons for non Jakarta
>> committers and weaken the rules above.
>I don't understand - do you mean only let people into commons that are
>committers elsewhere in Jakarta?  Interesting idea in that it keeps commons
>true to a *few* of it's original intents, but closes the door for some of
>the other original intents, namely as a way to build community.  I think I
>am pretty sure I would be against this, as letting new people into commons,
>like any other subproject in jakarta, is good and healthy.

Yes exactly, that I mean for proposal #1 "Commons as a private club". 
I just balancing the possible solutions and the effects.

Yep Commons would be a very exclusive party and maybe against the open
community character, that's the deal here in solution #1.

NOTE: I posted 2 proposals ;).

>>I think that would be a
>> realistic trade and I have no problem with that, really! Some of
>> us worked really hard to get their committer state, why not.
>> Apache was always something special under the OSS community. It is
>> professional led! It rules!
>Yep.  I agree with that.  Becoming a committer to Commons should be no
>'easier' than becoming a committer to anything else.  It means something.
>> 2) Commons is a public Club open for everybody and it has the same
>> process as every Jakarta project like Avalon, Struts, ... .
>> But now you have a problem. Normally it takes at least 3-6 month heavy
>> patch contributing until you become a committer in the other projects.
>> Especially the first time (like in live ;-)). After then, you
>> earned some respect, you're known in the community and things going
>> easier (Maybe I'm the only one, because my patches were to bad in the
>> beginning).
>:)  I have no idea if  that's true.  Appreciate the self-deprecating humor

Sadly it was truth in the beginning, but the Cocoon committers showed me
the way from the dark into the light ;).

>> I personally like this, because people contributing with more ambition
>> and they are earning their status. Farther on you don't want, that everybody
>> gets this easy an account. Kool I like this, but it doesn't
>> work for commons really! First of all, this 3 committer rule and then
>> the "you have to be Jakarta Committer" rule. What shall I do. Post to
>> every Jakarta list and advertise for the project. It doesn't work.
>> I understand why people don't show attention to my project, because
>> they aren't interested, are involved in much other things or don't
>> have the time. But then destiny got me and my project will stay in
>> commons-sandbox for ever. For me no problem, because I use it. But
>> somehow it's a pity that good projects get lost in the mass of contribution.
>I have to admit I lost you here.

I just wanted to describe the problem of building a community
No community, no commons. Hard, but truth. How to build a community?
Screaming loud and often? Remember what I talked above about many projects,
many visions.
How to build a community, when you have to? That's a little bit constrained.

I like this community approach for the big ones like (Tomcat, s.o.)!
But for commons it's too much and can't be handled fair!

>> How to solve #2, close commons under Jakarta and start something
>> completly new under a special domain. Apache for *everybody* and
>> restrict this to the Apache License. But then you have to handle
>> with a mass of contibutions.
>> Or you allow *written*, that people can be voted as committers for
>> commons-sandbox and you deal with the fact that your
>> members are increasing (is that bad?).
>> Ok but with which voting rules?

Here I mean just rising something up like SourceForge (Solution
for #2). Paul suggested it this afternoon in the Jakarta general
list! But I think Apache can't effort this.

>> Personally I prefer #1 and #2, because I like coding and for me
>> it doesn't play any role if this is in commons or commons-sandbox.
>> I like to share my knowledge and I like to learn from you guys.
>> That's my motivation.
>> But things here are going to be a farce and that's dangerous!
>> Make a clear statement and clear rules!
>> Sorry for being a little bit rude, but it's really weird here.
>> (apologies bad english)
>Your english is way better than my german - no worries :)
>I think I lost you at the end though.  Can you restate the last three

Personally I'm in a dilemma:
1. I would like to see Paul's AltRMI and other's (mine included, of course)
to be a success!
2. I have a problem, how Jakarta principles are weakened, just to work
around a definition issue here and otherwise are lived tough in other
projects. This I don't like in general. Sometimes hard for my friends ;)

So now I have to be careful, otherwise I shoot myself in the knee ;)

"In English, there is no double positive 
that makes a negative."
"Yeah, right." 

View raw message