incubator-general mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Sam Ruby <ru...@apache.org>
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!

Ben,

Do the bold words in the second paragraph of the proposed text for 
"Implications of Voting" at 
http://incubator.apache.org/drafts/voting.html#N1004F 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


Mime
View raw message