lucene-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Steven A Rowe <>
Subject RE: Maven
Date Sat, 28 Apr 2012 01:24:31 GMT
Hi Benson,

On 4/27/2012 at 8:36 PM, Benson Margulies wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 27, 2012 at 2:27 PM, Steven A Rowe <> wrote:
>> On 4/27/2012 at 9:10 AM, Benson Margulies wrote:
>>> 1: Should the Lucene PMC publish maven artifacts at all?
>>> - There seems to remain a consensus of the community: "Yes".
>> Not really: consensus means unanimous agreement.
> No, consensus means no one chooses to block consensus. And since
> Maven is in place, it would take a decision by consensus to remove
> it.

According to <>, procedural votes require
majority approval, not concensus.  

But maybe you're referring to the code change vote procedure, which allows a single PMC member
to veto code changes?  IMHO, Maven support in Lucene/Solr doesn't qualify as code.  (Simple
test: does Maven support - the POMs - ship with the source releases?  The answer is no.)

> Much email has been sent on the premise that Maven specially
> and uniquely raises certain IP and policy issues. It doesn't.
> It does offer some constraints and opportunities for coping
> with these issues.

AFAICT, Lucene/Solr completely complies with ASF policies, and will continue to do so - this
is a requirement for the continued existence of the project under ASF governance.

By contrast, Maven's "offered constraints", including its separate publishing platform, present
challenges that need to be addressed separately, at a cost that the project is not required
to bear.  The nature of those challenges (IP/policy/whatever) is IMHO immaterial.

> However, if I'm not being helpful, and it seems that I'm not, I'll return to lurking.

I value your opinions even though I may not always share them.  And I certainly welcome your
assistance in meeting the challenges of keeping Maven in-house here.


View raw message