Return-Path: Delivered-To: apmail-db-derby-dev-archive@www.apache.org Received: (qmail 1795 invoked from network); 26 Oct 2005 16:23:21 -0000 Received: from hermes.apache.org (HELO mail.apache.org) (209.237.227.199) by minotaur.apache.org with SMTP; 26 Oct 2005 16:23:21 -0000 Received: (qmail 69863 invoked by uid 500); 26 Oct 2005 16:23:04 -0000 Delivered-To: apmail-db-derby-dev-archive@db.apache.org Received: (qmail 69825 invoked by uid 500); 26 Oct 2005 16:23:04 -0000 Mailing-List: contact derby-dev-help@db.apache.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Post: List-Id: Reply-To: Delivered-To: mailing list derby-dev@db.apache.org Received: (qmail 69816 invoked by uid 99); 26 Oct 2005 16:23:04 -0000 Received: from asf.osuosl.org (HELO asf.osuosl.org) (140.211.166.49) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Wed, 26 Oct 2005 09:23:04 -0700 X-ASF-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.0 required=10.0 tests= X-Spam-Check-By: apache.org Received-SPF: neutral (asf.osuosl.org: local policy) Received: from [32.97.110.153] (HELO e35.co.us.ibm.com) (32.97.110.153) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Wed, 26 Oct 2005 09:23:01 -0700 Received: from d03relay04.boulder.ibm.com (d03relay04.boulder.ibm.com [9.17.195.106]) by e35.co.us.ibm.com (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id j9QGMfrr027058 for ; Wed, 26 Oct 2005 12:22:41 -0400 Received: from d03av01.boulder.ibm.com (d03av01.boulder.ibm.com [9.17.195.167]) by d03relay04.boulder.ibm.com (8.12.10/NCO/VERS6.7) with ESMTP id j9QGNeJv445168 for ; Wed, 26 Oct 2005 10:23:40 -0600 Received: from d03av01.boulder.ibm.com (loopback [127.0.0.1]) by d03av01.boulder.ibm.com (8.12.11/8.13.3) with ESMTP id j9QGMftv012207 for ; Wed, 26 Oct 2005 10:22:41 -0600 Received: from [127.0.0.1] (sig-9-48-125-205.mts.ibm.com [9.48.125.205]) by d03av01.boulder.ibm.com (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id j9QGMdwN012141 for ; Wed, 26 Oct 2005 10:22:40 -0600 Message-ID: <435FAD4E.9060102@debrunners.com> Date: Wed, 26 Oct 2005 09:22:38 -0700 From: Daniel John Debrunner User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.7.3) Gecko/20040910 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: derby-dev@db.apache.org Subject: Re: VOTE: Principles of sharing code References: <435ACFBC.50906@sun.com> <435EC919.1000006@sun.com> <435EFDE0.80804@sbcglobal.net> <435FA456.9000906@sun.com> In-Reply-To: <435FA456.9000906@sun.com> X-Enigmail-Version: 0.90.0.0 X-Enigmail-Supports: pgp-inline, pgp-mime Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Virus-Checked: Checked by ClamAV on apache.org X-Spam-Rating: minotaur.apache.org 1.6.2 0/1000/N David W. Van Couvering wrote: > I am still learning, so forgive me if I missed something, but I > carefully read the guidelines of our project: > One could also claim that this paragraph applies to these principles: http://db.apache.org/source.html Doubtful changes, new features, and large scale overhauls need to be discussed before committing them into the repository. Any change that affects the semantics of an existing API function, the size of the program, configuration data formats, or other major areas must receive consensus approval before being committed. Which would then require three binding votes ... My issue with the currrent principles is that there was lots of good discussion which lead to the good, generally agreed upon, summary on the wiki. Then a single comment from a single individual leads to principles that don't match the summary in the wiki. I believe the principles should have been in-line with the wiki, since it was based upon discussion, then Kathey could have vetoed with a reason if required. The abrupt change really concerns me. Dan.