httpd-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Gregg L. Smith" <>
Subject Re: [VOTE] release httpd mod_ftp-0.9.5 beta?
Date Tue, 15 Sep 2009 20:29:08 GMT
Headline: Policy kills and up-and-coming star

Problems I see in no particular order;

1. Two subproject votes called simultaneously totaling 3 concurrent open 
votes (fcgid, ftp, ServerTokens OFF), and a one "let's get this ready to 
vote" (httpd 2.3.3). That's a lot to chew on, especially with all the 
other important concerns floating about at this time (mod_proxy, CVE's 
against mod_proxy_ftp, bug smashing in current branch).

2. Lack of knowledge of existence at user base level!

3. Policy that may be simply too restrictive on something at this stage 
of development.

4. FTP servers are a dime a dozen.

Yes, I think calling this vote in the very next email written after the 
call to vote for mod_fcgid is a problem, especially when it is called 
along side a module that had been in use by a large number of users 
prior to ASF taking it over. mod_fcgid also had the benefit of a voting 
member whom backed it and was *very* active in getting it into the 
system and getting other members to look at it. Obviously this stole the 

The ultimate users of this module while may be PMC members is per capita 
going to be the people whom do not know they have a voice (albeit not 
binding) in the matter. Due to it's stealthy nature (only being 
discussed at the dev@ level AFAIK) there is probably a whole range of 
users that do not even know of it's existence. It also takes some guts 
to come on this list and make your opinion known. I am *not* saying that 
user input is ignore, I know full well it is not ignored as I can point 
to three things in the past month that prove as much.

Policy is policy, I understand it and in most cases I think it is a very 
sound policy, however as Gunter points out, maybe things at a certain 
stage need to be able to go outside of policy, or have a place that 
whereby anything under a certain category has an exception to this 
stringent policy due to it's level of maturity (not the right word but 
the right one alludes me at the moment). Maybe this should be a topic of 
discussion and vote. Then again, maybe I should shut up.

Gut feeling tells me that if binaries were available, and were announced 
prominently in the user haunts, there would be quite a bit of noise on 
this module pro and con. Some folks however will understandably not 
touch anything labeled beta, worse yet, some people (like me) are lazy. 
I currently have this module sitting on two hard drives compiled (vc6 & 
vc9) but have not found an opportune time to learn how to configure and 
use it as I have other priorities that unfortunately at this point and 
time supersede it. I personally think it is a great idea regardless and 
plan to make said time for it in the near future.

Just my 2 cents


William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
> Guenter Knauf wrote:
>> Also, since its beta state we should probably also take test results of
>> non-commiters into account, f.e. Mario and Jorge?
> We *always* (that is all of us, PMC members) consider everyone's votes and
> commentary on all releases.
> Although they are not binding, they are very important too :)
> But from a foundation process, policy and legal perspective, the 3 +1's
> rule serves an important purpose, and requires the votes of individuals
> who the ASF board has installed as PMC members (even though the PMC had
> chosen them in the first place).

View raw message