httpd-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From (Ralf S. Engelschall)
Subject Re: "official"
Date Fri, 31 Jan 1997 18:25:06 GMT

In article <> you wrote:
> On Fri, 31 Jan 1997, Ralf S. Engelschall wrote:

> > NO! I don't want to commit anything which was not reviewed by the group.
> > There is no discussion about this point. The point is not the privilege to CVS
> > (when I want such a happyness, then it would be better instead to think about
> > the various machines I administrate under root and what can be done with them
> > ;-). The point is the priviledge to be an official member of the group and the
> > priviledge to have the right to vote changes.

> Everyone on this list is as official a member as anyone else. Who do you
> think can grant you this "official" status ? 

I always though that the people having CVS access and do voting _ARE_ members
of the official core team, i.e. actually the guys who work hardly to make
Apache the best webserver one can make without profit. Just to join the list
is no good reason to think that one can vote and do active deleopment.  As I
said, when someone replies "Fine, do it yourself, we are happy with the
results" this will not make great development steps. You know that! Then there
are only here and there some people who contribute little patches. Only the
ones who are part of the core development team (i.e. the ones with CVS access
and vote priviledge) will do really hard work. The last year has shown this
up. All others are just doing some patches from time to time. With such a
spirit I think Apache 2.0 will be not only take 6 months, it will take 2

> I can't, I just help out
> here and as far as I can see everyone else is in the same position because
> Apache has no "official" structure. If having CVS privs gives you the
> warm fuzzies and a feeling of being "officially" part of Apache then we
> can probably accomodate that, but in reality there won't be anything official
> about it.

Ok, if there are no official members then the voting of the Apache Group is
useless in my mind. Because such a voting can be only useful if there is a
limited group of developers who do it. When no one votes it is useless and
if too much people vote this is again useless. And I think to vote
one should really know if one is part of the group or not.

> Another person on the list expressed an opnion that he didn't think he
> was officially part of the group, and I gave the same answer. I jokingly
> drew him a crude ascii Apache Group badge for him to wear :-) Do you want
> one ?  ;-)

<grin> Yes, see your point. But, sorry, then I have to say that the Apache
Group reduces its capailities itself. It is not very useful to have voting
rules on the one side and no idea of who is a member on the other side.
Hmmmm... I would prefer that there are more clear statements.

> If we (one day hopefully) incorporate as a non-profit org then we will be
> able to make things more official, but in the meantime, "official" anything
> can only be a title of convenience.

Ok, but in the meantime I think, "official" means (and this useful) the
priviledge to vote and commit. 

> Some people put "Apache member" or whatever in their signatures. Nobody's
> said they can, and nobody has said they can't. You can basically do what
> you please under the current informal structure of the group.

<grin> Ok, I gave up ;_) 
Forget the CVS access and voting priviledges for me...

Let us think we are all members of the same spirit and let us do more
constructive work instead of discussing this "official" stuff. At the weekend
I will look for mod_rewrite 2.5.0 which actually is 2.4.1 stripped down for
1.2 only and with the snprintf-patches applied.   This is more useful for

                                       Ralf S. Engelschall

View raw message