Return-Path: 
 <users-return-133475-apmail-maven-users-archive=maven.apache.org@maven.apache.org>
X-Original-To: apmail-maven-users-archive@www.apache.org
Delivered-To: apmail-maven-users-archive@www.apache.org
Received: from mail.apache.org (hermes.apache.org [140.211.11.3])
	by minotaur.apache.org (Postfix) with SMTP id F324910971
	for <apmail-maven-users-archive@www.apache.org>;
 Fri,  2 Aug 2013 15:52:25 +0000 (UTC)
Received: (qmail 58338 invoked by uid 500); 2 Aug 2013 15:52:23 -0000
Delivered-To: apmail-maven-users-archive@maven.apache.org
Received: (qmail 58048 invoked by uid 500); 2 Aug 2013 15:52:21 -0000
Mailing-List: contact users-help@maven.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:users-unsubscribe@maven.apache.org>
List-Help: <mailto:users-help@maven.apache.org>
List-Post: <mailto:users@maven.apache.org>
List-Id: "Maven Users List" <users.maven.apache.org>
Reply-To: "Maven Users List" <users@maven.apache.org>
Delivered-To: mailing list users@maven.apache.org
Received: (qmail 58015 invoked by uid 99); 2 Aug 2013 15:52:20 -0000
Received: from athena.apache.org (HELO athena.apache.org) (140.211.11.136)
    by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Fri, 02 Aug 2013 15:52:20 +0000
X-ASF-Spam-Status: No, hits=1.5 required=5.0
	tests=HTML_MESSAGE,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW,SPF_PASS
X-Spam-Check-By: apache.org
Received-SPF: pass (athena.apache.org: domain of paulus.benedictus@gmail.com
 designates 209.85.219.66 as permitted sender)
Received: from [209.85.219.66] (HELO mail-oa0-f66.google.com) (209.85.219.66)
    by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Fri, 02 Aug 2013 15:52:15 +0000
Received: by mail-oa0-f66.google.com with SMTP id i4so692527oah.5
        for <multiple recipients>; Fri, 02 Aug 2013 08:51:55 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;
        d=gmail.com; s=20120113;
        h=mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:date
         :x-google-sender-auth:message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type;
        bh=X04hlRe7YCf59C6RzQdFGvBxt4tKyTaf/ZAau+vlCyg=;
        b=xIi8c0GIfRG7cktHPhC7e40jkIKEsG2zwPWmZfevuO0KvG+UHXGmq8B4BWmGGGTGSW
         NRd8tr3MFY2iKVqCrqP5wldermAUdD+qARUi3kHK++uPklycW5LZpY1Oeheb4xVeOHU4
         apHe8v9Fd+TsUwTakkeeu7nv+Se+zTwtzouaiflTQCx23Mw8HpQnvx5NEW1Tx0iFXu2f
         obx3/huNP/AtJ9gyJrxogBYon2TJc56wxb+j3OLEXXmgToPT1tqKMMf+Ycy2uKaOh1dE
         eKgDJ41sIG5Mce0vLQ4EINU0BPBeoxr3LqfmTJNjdfpQ8ZikrgDvh1PEXeAuTjHv9WAP
         95tg==
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.60.60.228 with SMTP id k4mr5528988oer.84.1375458715022; Fri,
 02 Aug 2013 08:51:55 -0700 (PDT)
Sender: paulus.benedictus@gmail.com
Received: by 10.76.139.5 with HTTP; Fri, 2 Aug 2013 08:51:54 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: 
 <CA+nPnMzWssirHAW4D-7XF0y+EXL0rKNQAeZ1CinC=HAzFxCHeA@mail.gmail.com>
References: 
 <CA+nPnMyvQ6jryMhPSGb-BMkFCF9CwRu_1AiTE92ZLXwp8dPsKQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAMk_BeiuT6kg90vPTyWpJyxxSpxqGAC4Ev4Acprijx+PP5n6cA@mail.gmail.com>
	<CA+nPnMzxSRAn=UpUy2MnNrTY1BtcKBVT+WxFXEdB43BkYK7KXA@mail.gmail.com>
	<CABLGb9ykPtBM-C7VaMDT-V24-_Y923gUwJ9o=dG+T+yy_Rp3Sw@mail.gmail.com>
	<CA+nPnMzWssirHAW4D-7XF0y+EXL0rKNQAeZ1CinC=HAzFxCHeA@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 2 Aug 2013 10:51:54 -0500
X-Google-Sender-Auth: S-k0IPV7eIeo_HsjukA-ApjKAzw
Message-ID: 
 <CABLGb9zm6-g-m4bGgn5yLdpiZBfSyirfxGrayRPccd0ygvN+wA@mail.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...)
From: Paul Benedict <pbenedict@apache.org>
To: Maven Developers List <dev@maven.apache.org>
Cc: Maven Users List <users@maven.apache.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=089e01538c5a1cb97a04e2f8f0d8
X-Virus-Checked: Checked by ClamAV on apache.org

--089e01538c5a1cb97a04e2f8f0d8
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1

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

--089e01538c5a1cb97a04e2f8f0d8--