lucene-general mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "patrick o'leary" <pj...@pjaol.com>
Subject Re: [VOTE] merge lucene/solr development (take 3)
Date Fri, 12 Mar 2010 15:39:12 GMT
I consider this to be pretty basic

1) A vote was called, 3 times... Obviously that shows a lack of
clarification of the proposal.
2) The details of the proposal was discussed and I would say points of it's
implications augmented from vote 1 through to vote 3 in email threads.
3) Votes had already occurred when clarifications / changes were made.

I don't think anyone can honestly state this vote is acceptable.
If you are confident that the community is happy then you should have
confidence that the points of the proposal can be posted to a static page,
discussion & clarifications can be had, once everything is cleared up, the
vote can then be called with the same outcome.

Otherwise I would consider this an invalid vote



On Fri, Mar 12, 2010 at 6:51 AM, Mark Miller <markrmiller@gmail.com> wrote:

> Personal? Heh. I think you misread my email. Or confused it with someone
> elses.
>
>
> On 03/12/2010 09:38 AM, Dennis Kubes wrote:
>
>> Don't try and make this personal. That is just juvenile and will only take
>> this discussion (If that is what this is) in the wrong direction.
>>
>> Being overruled doesn't mean I won't make my opinion known vocally when I
>> think a very large mistake is being made.  And you aren't just overruling
>> me.  Many people have expressed discontent with this plan, but you guys are
>> pushing it through anyways.
>>
>> Dennis
>>
>>
>> Mark Miller wrote:
>>
>>> You have come a long way from "If that means I get overruled, so be it."
>>> Dennis.
>>>
>>> Its a PMC vote where majority rules. As Bernd noted, vetoes are for
>>> specific svn
>>> commits with valid technical reasons. If you guys want to try and drag it
>>> out forever,
>>> I don't see much to stop you from trying, but the whole situation is
>>> pretty clear.
>>>
>>> I, for one, am looking forward to what this merge will bring to Lucene
>>> and Solr.
>>>
>>>
>>> On 03/12/2010 09:15 AM, Dennis Kubes wrote:
>>>
>>>>  Yes railroading.
>>>>
>>>>  Many people don't want this to occur.  More than just minus 2.
>>>>  Underlying concerns are not being addressed.  Vetos count.  Ignoring
>>>>  that is ignoring how Apache operates.  Merging projects is definitely
>>>>  a code change.  Getting around it by saying this is a goal is
>>>>  fundamentally wrong.
>>>>
>>>>  1) What prevents functionality be moved over into Lucene within the
>>>>  current project structure?  Nothing, so why are we even discussing
>>>>  this.
>>>>
>>>>  2) Why is Solr getting special treatment?  Because there is a lot of
>>>>  committer overlap?  Should I propose to merge Nutch in too, lets just
>>>>  have one big project, no distinctions.
>>>>
>>>>  3) Why the big push here to blur project responsibilities? Idk, I
>>>>  keep wondering that myself.
>>>>
>>>>  Dennis
>>>>
>>>>  Grant Ingersoll wrote:
>>>> > On Mar 12, 2010, at 7:54 AM, Dennis Kubes wrote:
>>>> >
>>>> >> This has definitely NOT passed.  With as much contention,
>>>> >> discussion, and debate as there has been on this, saying that it
>>>> >> has passed is akin to saying "we are just going to do it
>>>> >> anyways".  This is being railroaded IMO and needs to be taken to
>>>> >> a higher level within the Apache organization.
>>>> >
>>>> > How is two weeks of discussion and all the committers on the
>>>> > projects minus 2 being for it and three different votes on it (all
>>>> > with the same outcome), "railroading"? -Grant
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>
> --
> - Mark
>
> http://www.lucidimagination.com
>
>
>
>

Mime
  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message