maven-users mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Stephen Connolly <stephen.alan.conno...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: [DISCUSS] On the Maven PMC roles... (was [DISCUSS] Should the Maven PMC be an example of how we want the Maven Community to behave...)
Date Fri, 02 Aug 2013 16:10:33 GMT
We cannot stop somebody from developing something outside of Apache.

So I could go off and write a High Performance Logging API... now I could
be doing that because I want to foist that Logging API on Maven... or I
could be doing it as an experiment that, if successful, I may offer for
Maven to consume... or I could be doing it because I need it for my Day
Job...

We cannot know the reasons why somebody is doing something outside of
Maven... we can ask, but we cannot *know* if the answer we are given is
truthful.

So anyway, I now have this ultra whizzbang high performance logging API and
I am aware of some deficit in the logging performance of Maven, so I spin
up a private fork (it could be a hidden private fork, or it could be a
public one... doesn't matter) and integrate the logging API and low and
behold I see a whopping X% improvement... so I want to bring that back to
Maven...

Is there anything wrong with the above?

If the library I created is under a Category A license and open source and
I go with CTR and nobody vetos my commit... we have consensus... why do we
need to go all Iron Fist and require a vote?

We already have established tools: review of commits, vetos on commits,
mandatory votes for Category B dependencies...

Do we really need *more* processes and procedures to follow?

On 2 August 2013 16:51, Paul Benedict <pbenedict@apache.org> wrote:

> I don't understand the iron hand analogy. I was expressing the use of a
> vote to allow or disallow critical development outside of Apache. The vote
> would lead to a consensus, no?
>
>
> On Fri, Aug 2, 2013 at 10:41 AM, Stephen Connolly <
> stephen.alan.connolly@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On 2 August 2013 16:32, Paul Benedict <pbenedict@apache.org> wrote:
> >
> > > Furthermore, I'd like to see explicit procedural rules on Maven Core
> and
> > > forking. For example, if there's a critical component needing
> development
> > > for Core, and a PMC expresses that such development will be done
> outside
> > of
> > > Apache and then used as a dependency, shouldn't there be a vote on
> that?
> > >
> >
> > Votes should be a tool to confirm consensus... not an iron hand.
> >
> > If the consensus of the developers is to use the dependency which is
> > external to the project, then that is fine. If there is no consensus then
> > the dependency will not be introduced.
> >
> > We already have a policy that adding Category B dependencies to Core
> > requires approval of the PMC, I don't see that there is much value in
> > adding even more to this document... but if you can suggest a patch and
> > people agree with it...
> >
> > -Stephen
> >
>
>
>
> --
> Cheers,
> Paul
>

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