Date: Mon, 18 Nov 1996 17:59:17 +0000 (GMT)
From: Paul Sutton <paul@ukweb.com>
Reply-To: Paul Sutton <paul@ukweb.com>
To: new-httpd@hyperreal.com
Subject: Voting meta-discussion (was Re: cvs commit: apache/src mod_rewrite.h
 Makefile.tmpl (fwd))
In-Reply-To: <57917zlly8.fsf@tees.elsevier.co.uk>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.3.95.961118173824.28058B-100000@star.ukweb.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Sender: new-httpd-owner@apache.org
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: new-httpd@hyperreal.com

On 18 Nov 1996, Paul Richards wrote:
> I've always been against voting. This is the only project I've ever
> been involved in that has these procedures and Apache is a lot simpler
> than most of them. Using cvs the way we have been has accelerated
> progress considerably. I don't see that we've got a less stable product

I would prefer not to comment on this, but in case silence is taken as
agreement I'd just like to make it clear that I disagree with what you say
here.

I think:

  1.  Voting is a valuable part of the development process. It
      ensures that new features are developed with at least some
      degree of consistancy, and prevents it being side-tracked
      by an individual's personal preferences. Whether the 
      three-vote approval/one-vote veto are correct numbers of
      votes to use is another issue

  2.  Voting has no relationship with CVS access rights. I don't
      think it is helpful to critisise developers who do not
      use CVS, or try to disenfranchise from from the development
      process

  3.  It is wrong to develop code on the principle of first
      putting it into the current code then taking it out if it fails.
      New code and features should be discussed first and tested before
      being applied after an approval vote

  4.  A feature freeze does not imply a free-for-all to commit their
      favourite patches just prior to the freeze

Paul
UK Web Ltd