geronimo-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Ryan Ackley" <>
Subject Re: committer process
Date Fri, 12 Sep 2003 19:40:40 GMT
> Anyway, it looks like those documents were lifted from the way Jakarta
> works today. As Greg (who is the ASF Chairman) pointed out in an earlier
> message, the way Jakarta does it and the way HTTPD and APR do it are
> completely
> different. I do not believe the Jakarta method of public voting is
> good, and
> I believe we should use the HTTPD/APR method in this project. I'm not
> going
> to try to change Jakarta today, but I do not believe new projects should
> be created with those rules in place.

It is important to note that I am not a developer or a committer on the
geronimo project. I have no vested interest in whatever way you guys decide
to do it. There seemed to be a lot of flailing around so I decided to step
in and comment. I am a committer on a Jakarta subproject called POI.

Having said that, my opinion can only stand on the weight of its arguments.
I don't carry any weight as a contributor :-)

IMO excluding the committers and developers from discussions and votes go
against the principles of a meritocracy. The people who are doing all the
work should have final say...period...end of story. Leaders should rise from
the pack based on their actions not on their committee memberships. When all
important decisions are being made behind closed doors how can committers
who may not be on the PMC develop into leaders?

I have not heard one compelling argument for keeping committer votes
restricted to the PMC.



View raw message