Mailing-List: contact dev-help@httpd.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: dev@httpd.apache.org
Received-SPF: pass (athena.apache.org: local policy)
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gbiv.com; h=content-type
	:mime-version:subject:from:in-reply-to:date
	:content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references:to; q=dns; s=
	gbiv.com; b=ICNyZy9hvPFtgmAQ5Jkhq2xCX7iXbNzOXtsi/wSdtAXvzyPkm33F
	GtYjmHFAbJmhMtZjkRMIMBRHOz3Ua6KMmTfZaBetQaA3ZN1BNfhnIMBhlV9H3/t4
	9cC5Tcpxma1tii4VFUo+XXbJ8m7ttlEiBRRL9BMSWsCid4jSleFg/1Q=
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1257)
Subject: Re: Technical reasons for -1 votes (?)
From: "Roy T. Fielding" <fielding@gbiv.com>
In-Reply-To: <4F4E6397.90300@rowe-clan.net>
Date: Wed, 29 Feb 2012 16:25:09 -0800
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <17CC007E-42CB-451A-B6EF-97B4D073F3F8@gbiv.com>
References: <6FA5AFBB-FDD7-43DF-9E5D-4AA94A85529D@sharp.fm>
 <4EE90734.7020809@rowe-clan.net> <4F4D9767.80409@rowe-clan.net>
 <201202291559.14952.nd@perlig.de> <4F4E6397.90300@rowe-clan.net>
To: dev@httpd.apache.org

On Feb 29, 2012, at 9:42 AM, William A. Rowe Jr. wrote:

> On 2/29/2012 8:59 AM, Andr=E9 Malo wrote:
>> On Wednesday 29 February 2012 04:11:35 William A. Rowe Jr. wrote:
>>>=20
>>> I withdraw this vote, reverting my position to -1, until =
collaboration and
>>> respect for options and insights of fellow committers as well as =
project
>>> decisions and votes can be consistently demonstrated.
>>=20
>> I always thought, you'd have to provide technical reasons for -1 =
votes (?).
>=20
> Let's take Roy's position on the attached vote discussion, it's =
relevant.
> These new modules are certainly additions/deletions to httpd.

Yes, but they are modules.  Hence, their mere existence in our tree
is not a technical reason to exclude them.  We have a modular =
architecture
so that people who don't want a module don't have to build it.  In fact,
it was exactly this type of argument in 1995 that caused rst to focus
on creating a modular architecture.

If there were dependencies or license conditions brought in that somehow
harmed the server without the module being active, then that would be a
technical objection.

Traditionally, we have allowed any module that has at least one willing
volunteer committer to maintain it.  And I agree with Jim, none of the
subprojects have been as successful as just placing the code in the
main tree.

I have no idea why mod_fcgi is in a subproject.  mod_ftp is there
because it isn't an HTTP server.  mod_aspdotnet had all sorts of
licensing issues that I never quite figured out.

I see no reason not to commit mod_firehose, though I haven't had a
chance to look at the code myself.  Nor am I willing to respect a
veto war based on the impact of past vetos.

Now, if you'll excuse me, I have at least two other walls to bang
my head on today ...

....Roy