commons-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Paulo Gaspar" <>
Subject RE: [Logging] [VOTE] Commons Logging 1.0 Release
Date Mon, 04 Feb 2002 11:36:51 GMT
Answer inline:

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Geir Magnusson Jr. []
> Sent: Monday, February 04, 2002 4:02 AM
> On 2/3/02 7:56 PM, "Paulo Gaspar" <> wrote:
> > Answer inline:
> >
> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> From: Geir Magnusson Jr. []
> >> Sent: Sunday, February 03, 2002 11:11 PM
> >>
> >> On 2/3/02 4:21 PM, "Paulo Gaspar" <> wrote:
> >>
> >>> Amazing work on HYPOTHETICAL situations.
> >>
> >> Well, it's a valid question given the governance model we are
> proposing.
> Still don't want to address that one, eh?

I just don't get it.
What governance model are we proposing?
Who is we?

AFAIK there are several governance models being proposed and, at the
moment, me and you have different ideas about it (although we started
with almost the same).

> ...
> >
> > The commons as an organizing place makes sense INSIDE Jakarta.
> Which is what it is.  I never advocated anything different.

I guess I am getting a bit confused about your statements and
sometimes I am not sure about which you really defend and which are
the provocative ones.

Not that I have anything against being provocative, of course!

> > ...
> >
> > However, the model that Costin finally made me understand might really
> > make sense. Maybe less rules really gives room to more creativity.
> > Maybe things really work out better as Costin says. He made me believe
> > so and I do not think I am able to explain it better than he did - and
> > I am not going to try, but you can go back and read it again if it
> > interests you.
> I certainly will.  Costin has a lot of great insights.

Yes! It is a pity he is so quiet.

> >
> > And, again, CVS allows us to rollback things if something goes wrong.
> Care to take that to the logical conclusion?

I do not have the same logical conclusion.

> PROPOSAL : Grant CVS read/write to anyone subscribed to the mail list.
> Make it automatic upon subscription to save root@ the time for
> configuration
> and the community time for voting.  After all, any list subscriber is a
> community participant at that point.
> I'll start the voting with an confident
> -1

I agree on that -1. But the proposal is extreme.

Things do not have to be either white or black. Maybe we just need
the right shade of gray.

> No thanks.
> >
> > Now, you are afraid that we are getting to big and that it will not
> > work so well in the future because of that.
> No - I think Jakarta is getting too big.  But that's for another list. My
> problem with governance of commons is different.  Very specific, and
> different.
> I hope commons grows to *hundreds* of well crafted, well documented, well
> supported components.
> >I think that you might be
> > right, but I also think that:
> > - It is still working well now as it is;
> > - We can fix it if/when the current rules don't cut it.
> My worry is that it will either be too hard to fix, or it will be
> too broken
> that we lost the chance to keep what great community spirit we have.

IMHO we are not there yet. I even think we are still improving on that
community spirit.

> Lets face the fact that the Apache model works.  We are taking a risk with
> the commons model.  I don't mind risks when I see an upside, which I don't
> now.

IMO the current success of the commons is tied to its current model.
I think we would not have so many components if the model was more

And the project is so young that I still expect a quality improvement
and I find it natural that an higher level of quality (code
conventions, docs, tests, etc.) is still not there.

Read the Costin stuff for a wider vision of what the upside of a
loose model is - that was what converted me.

> > With software projects and organizations, a low level of bureaucracy
> > works better for the smaller ones and a higher level works better for
> > the larger ones.
> Nah.  I don't buy it.  I believe that smaller organizations
> always are more
> innovative, work faster and better, and produce more per
> contributor.

Much because they spend less time on bureaucracy. Now Try to keep
a low level of bureaucracy with a big one.

> It's
> like the old joke that the productivity of any meeting is inversely
> proportional the number of attendees.

Me thinks it is not a joke.

> By specifically recognizing the contributors of each component through the
> designation of 'committer' that is determined by their peers ( rather than
> their ability to use vi, emacs, visualstudio, idea, jbuilder or
> edlin on the
> STATUS.html file), and giving them the right to choose what
> happens to their
> work-product, I believe that you get all the advantages of small, tight
> teams as well as the pride of having your contributions, no
> matter what they
> are, recognized by people who really are interested in the same subject.

And I (now) think that it works a lot that way even when you do not
enforce it and that there is room to fix it when it does not.

I also think that having some extra pressure from potential users
can be a good pressure to make things usable on a short term.

Moreover (and maybe this one is controversial) if there is more
than a way of doing the same thing and if 2 groups believe on
2 incompatible ones, maybe there should be 2 components for that
thing. And I do not think we need to regulate this - we just need
to leave room for it since there will always be a natural peer
pressure against abusing this duplication.

> Don't get me wrong - so far, I think we have been very fortunate. I think
> all of the commons committers are great, committed people, and I wouldn't
> change any of the contents of the STATUS files (except for Peter
> in logging
> :)

I think that Peter was just defending the same principles you are.
So, there still was no such problem.

> However, I see storm clouds on the horizon.

Maybe, but they are still so far that maybe the storm will take a
long time to come our way. (The optimist)

> > So, while we are small enough, less is more - lets keep the bureaucracy
> > lower until we really get too big.
> So on that basis, do you support the above proposal?

Which proposal?

> >
> >> geir
> >
> > Have fun,
> > Paulo
> I used to,
> geir

Why are you so sad now???

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

View raw message