httpd-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Paul Richards <p.richa...@elsevier.co.uk>
Subject membership
Date Thu, 27 Jun 1996 12:30:50 GMT
>>>>> ""Roy" == "Roy T Fielding" <fielding@liege.ICS.UCI.EDU> writes:

"Roy> It used to be true that only people who were already invited to
"Roy> join the Apache Group, or people invited to join in discussions
"Roy> (like NCSA and RobM), were allowed to send mail to this mailing
"Roy> list.  Has that been changed?  That is why the voting guidelines
"Roy> <http://www.hyperreal.com/httpd/voting.html> say:

"Roy> Voting is a little more than just being a member of the group --
"Roy> it also means that you are willing and able to do the work.
"Roy> That is why I don't vote on releases except on those occasions
"Roy> when I have a working test server and the time to do some
"Roy> testing.  Most of the Apache work that I do is related to
"Roy> keeping an eye on standards issues, the W3C, and occasional
"Roy> herding of the cats.  That, combined with reading all the mail
"Roy> on this list and the web-related mailing lists, is why I vote on
"Roy> anything related to standards or the future of the Apache
"Roy> project.  I am fairly certain that the rest of the group is
"Roy> following similar guidelines when they vote, even though not all
"Roy> of them are written down.

At some point things are going to get too big. I'm not going to push
the project one way or another but having been down this road before
eventually it's going to be necessary to create some "executive" group
along the line of FreeBSD/NetBSD/XFree86 etc. It's easy for a small
group of 10-15 to reach concensus in a finite time but when there's
100+ involved in the project things just never converge in a realistic
time period and decisions have to be delegated to a smaller body. Even
if this was to happen, it's extremely important to reach concensus with
the group as a whole or you start to piss off your contributors (having
a lot of contributors is generally a good thing). This is all totally
unrelated to the question of Apache as a legal entity, it's just a
matter of how the project is organised.

As far as coding decisions go, there already is such a body since to
actually get a change accepted into the src tree you have to convince
one of the committers that it's a good patch. I think that group of
people is currently very small and doesn't include people like Rob H so
it's not really a good forum for such decisions.

The list on the web site is very out of date, some people are basically
not involved any more and some current contributors aren't listed. If
we're going to have such lists then do it the FreeBSD way (check the
web site). 

The core team are listed as such, the development team (those with commit
priviliges) are listed as such (two relatively small groups), then anyone
who has ever contributed anything to the project is listed as a
contributor. It's not very fair to do things the way they currently are
on the "contributors" web page.

The way core works in the other projects I've been involved in, it's generally
been formed by the people who set the project up and are pushing the
project forward. As the project evolves new members are invited into core
by the existing core members (i.e. the core team makes a decision to bring
in someone new) usually because that person is working as hard as a core
member and therefore justifies their place.

Mime
View raw message