incubator-general mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Sam Ruby <>
Subject Re: do no harm
Date Thu, 07 Nov 2002 15:31:08 GMT
Ben Hyde wrote:
 > These, and others, can do a lot of damage.  If you take someplace
 > where things are fuzzy for a good reason and force them to be clear
 > all your doing is naively forcing a choice where the system has
 > already discovered that there isn't an obvious good choice.  This can
 > be way harmful!


Do the bold words in the second paragraph of the proposed text for 
"Implications of Voting" at meet your criteria 
for "do no harm"?

It appears that HTTPD has an unwritten rule that the person who puts 
forward a veto has an obligation to at least convince one other 
committer that the veto has some basis (even if that person does not 
necessary agree with the veto).  Jakarta has a unratified proposal along 
the same lines.

In defence of what is currently captured on the incubator site, what is 
specified is unambiguous and easy to apply.  My experience of following 
a similar policy is that the ramifications of such a policy is that this 
results in a number of "necessary forks".  While painful, it does lead 
to a path of conflict resolution without requiring intervention.

- Sam Ruby

View raw message