lucene-general mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Mattmann, Chris A (388J)" <>
Subject Re: [VOTE] merge lucene/solr development (take 3)
Date Fri, 12 Mar 2010 16:07:46 GMT
Here's what I didn't like. The vote was:

* ambiguous
* something that the Solr devs tried to push through and bullied folks on during discussion
(those who originally had questions were persuaded that it was the "right thing to do" by
those in the PMC leadership).
* not healthy for the project
* subject to VETO since at the very least it proposes code modifications, but also because:
  - there have been seemingly hundreds of emails over the last week just to discuss this issue,
with there being enough misunderstanding to have folks recommending that we (a) break the
proposal up into concrete, actionable (retractable) steps, and; (b) at the very least sitting
on it for a week and then revisiting the issue.

Also rather than "speculating" on what the board will do, I'd rather just find out.


On 3/12/10 5:26 AM, "Bernd Fondermann" <> wrote:

What's it that you don't like about the vote?
o that it wasn't prepended with enough community [DISCUSS]
o the phrasing of the vote itself
o the length of the voting process
o the outcome of the vote
o something else

Just curious.

BTW, I think it will be hard to appeal to the board or any other body
of the ASF (IMHO).
The Lucene PMC is tasked with directing the project and functional in
doing so (as far as I can see).
And honestly, if there would be another VOTE (or 10 such votes),
wouldn't the outcome in terms of general direction of the project be
the same, entirely?


Chris Mattmann, Ph.D.
Senior Computer Scientist
NASA Jet Propulsion Laboratory Pasadena, CA 91109 USA
Office: 171-266B, Mailstop: 171-246
Adjunct Assistant Professor, Computer Science Department
University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA 90089 USA

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