Return-Path: 
 <geronimo-dev-return-134-apmail-incubator-geronimo-dev-archive=incubator.apache.org@incubator.apache.org>
Delivered-To: apmail-incubator-geronimo-dev-archive@incubator.apache.org
Received: (qmail 92015 invoked by uid 500); 8 Aug 2003 00:28:32 -0000
Mailing-List: contact geronimo-dev-help@incubator.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
list-help: <mailto:geronimo-dev-help@incubator.apache.org>
list-unsubscribe: <mailto:geronimo-dev-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org>
list-post: <mailto:geronimo-dev@incubator.apache.org>
Delivered-To: mailing list geronimo-dev@incubator.apache.org
Received: (qmail 92002 invoked from network); 8 Aug 2003 00:28:32 -0000
Received: from ms-smtp-01.southeast.rr.com (24.93.67.82)
  by daedalus.apache.org with SMTP; 8 Aug 2003 00:28:32 -0000
Received: from noel770 (cae88-112-241.sc.rr.com [24.88.112.241])
	by ms-smtp-01.southeast.rr.com (8.12.5/8.12.2) with SMTP id h780M4Yu012584
	for <geronimo-dev@incubator.apache.org>; Thu, 7 Aug 2003 20:22:05 -0400 (EDT)
From: "Noel J. Bergman" <noel@devtech.com>
To: <geronimo-dev@incubator.apache.org>
Subject: RE: Project Goals
Date: Thu, 7 Aug 2003 20:30:14 -0400
Message-ID: <NBBBJGEAGJAKLIDBKJOPMELBDDAB.noel@devtech.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Priority: 3 (Normal)
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.6604 (9.0.2911.0)
In-Reply-To: 
 <20030807164613.28229.h014.c001.wm@mail.downinthedesert.com.criticalpath.net>
X-MIMEOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1165
Importance: Normal
X-Spam-Rating: daedalus.apache.org 1.6.2 0/1000/N

John,

The project will have one or more (one for now) managed source repositories,
and there is the Wiki.  The former are official, and managed by the
project's Committers.  The latter are for rapid collaboration by any
participant, which means that the content may be less official at any given
moment.

See also: http://jakarta.apache.org/site/guidelines.html for answers to some
of your questions.

Anyone can vote, but only Committer votes are binding.  As a technical
matter, the Project Management Committee provides management/oversight.
Votes are in public, tallied, and (of course) the artifacts are in the
archives.  Vetoes are only permitted on technical issues, and only when
accompanied by a justification.

<soapbox opinion=personal>
I structured the previous paragraph to end on that point on purpose.  Vetoes
are not supposed to be arbitrary roadblocks.  In my opinion, it is crucial
to the process to understand that the justification for a veto lays the
foundation for resolving it.  We can assume as a matter of mutal respect
that there is a valid reason for wanting to do something, and an equally
valid reason for saying no.  Since there assumed to be two valid viewpoints,
we want to understand the rationale on both sides so that we can navigate
the solution space to a mutually acceptable consensus.

There is also a social aspect involved.  There are few things more
frustrating, whether you are a child or an adult, to just being told "no"
without any reason.  Focusing on technical issues, and resolving them in
demonstrable ways, helps to reduce social tension in the face of conflict.
Equally important, it focuses the conflict on the technical issues, and off
of your peers.
</soapbox>

	--- Noel