httpd-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Brian Behlendorf <>
Subject Re: membership
Date Thu, 27 Jun 1996 05:18:25 GMT

Thanks, Roy, for that excellent post.

On Wed, 26 Jun 1996, Roy T. Fielding wrote:
> > Hmm. Out of curiosity, how do we define a "member of the Apache Group"? As
> > far as I know, there's no ID card, or application form, or special
> > handshake, or anything... If anyone asked me (which they haven't), I'd go
> > for the IETF approach, which means that anyone on the list *is* a member.
> Ummm, no -- the IETF does not allow anyone on the list to veto a patch
> (change request).  

I think he was referring to the goal, at least, of the IETF process, which
is to attain consensus, rather than having a straight vote.  If I were to
stand up during an IETF meeting and declare that I had a serious problem
with a proposal, it wouldn't really matter who I was or where I came from,
I'd still have the ability to speak, and then live with the consequences
if I don't make a convincing argument of course.  It's the only way a
couple of us college-dropout yahoos would have had any chance of
contributing to the process :)  But that is distinctly different than our
vote/veto system.

To me, the only distinction that exists from a functional level is between
those with write access to the RCS tree and those without.  While I have
been somewhat loose in telling people about the development group -
basically, if they look like they are going to be doing serious work with
Apache, then i figure the volume of the mail is enough of a filter - I
take seriously the granting of write access.  I trust those with RCS
access to be intelligent about the changes they make, to bring proposed
changes to the group first (and wait for feedback), and most importantly
to know how to rationally resolve conflicting desires.  This is all within
the context of a system which lets us back out of anything if there's ever
problems.  The write-access group is kept small to make sure things stay
manageable, but it's important to make sure there is enough activity from
those with write access that progress is indeed made. 

"Apache Group membership" is a term without any legal meaning right now.
I consider anyone who is a regular contributor to be a "member", if they
want to claim to be one.  Do newbies have a right to vote, to veto?  Sure,
but they have to be willing to stand up and defend their decision.  I
don't think anyone's ever vetoed something here withou giving an
explanation - we've had debates which could be called "religous" but
fortunately there's been enough humility to go around when it came to
implemention.  Hopefully that'll continue.

We can continue the discussion about the legal status of "the Apache
Group" after 1.1 is out - there are some hairy issues and politics 
involved, which I have been doing a fair amount of thinking about and
believe I can address, but now is not the time.



View raw message