struts-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Frank W. Zammetti" <>
Subject Re: [S2] Libraries in JDK 1.4 distribution
Date Wed, 16 Jan 2008 21:42:58 GMT
Niall Pemberton wrote:
> On Jan 16, 2008 3:47 PM, Frank W. Zammetti <> wrote:
>> Niall Pemberton wrote:
>>> For the record I agree with Martin and in my book votes-are-votes
>>> whoever they come from.
>> Well, I'm reading the bylaws right now:
> Yeah and missing the wood for the trees. 

Not a fair comment Niall.  All people have to go on is the stated policy 
of a project, of which the bylaws are a primary part of.  If they aren't 
an accurate reflection of the reality, there's a problem.  I'm not 
missing a thing, except that Struts apparently has its bylaws, and then 
they have another set of "bylaws" that are actually acted upon that live 
in the minds of its developers and not in the written words of the 
stated bylaws.  I view this is a problem.

> Vetos need justification
> whoever they're from and it the justification is considered valid I'm
> sure it would be acted upon. +1s are easier to throw around, but I'm a
> whole lot happier the more I see, again whoever they're from.

I'm in complete agreement with that, and I have ZERO doubt that binding 
voters taken non-binding votes into account.

> Hopefully (personal opinion coming here) people throwing a +1 on a
> release means they've at least checked out the distro and tested it in
> some way. 

Also completely agree, doesn't matter where the +1 comes from, you'd 
hope, and I'm relatively sure, that's usually the case.

 > The fact that most votes I see is usually committers is
> disappointing and I think you're just contributing in this debate to
> putting off non-committers voting by telling them they have no value.

Absolutely not!  Questioning something in a project in no way diminishes 
the project, it in fact enhances it.  That's what I'm doing here, 
questioning and seeking clarification, which so far has been elusive.  I 
am in no way, shape or form telling anyone their vote has no value. 
What I *AM* pointing out is that there is NO WAY TO KNOW who's vote 
actually has value, and how much, because the written bylaws arguably do 
not represent the reality... and I only say arguably because there's 
discrepancy in whether they do apply or not, and what's been said in 
this thread 100% supports that claim.

> Whatever the policy/by-laws/rules/admin says is it currently working -
> I would say so, except it would be nice to have more people voting.

Yes, it's working.  But that's no guarantee it always will, and there's 
nothing to say it couldn't work better.  What I don't understand is why 
there's any hesitation to get the bylaws inline with reality, whatever 
that reality is.  Isn't that the easy answer?  Ends any debate between 
Ted and Martin, shuts me up, and likely gets more people to vote because 
they understand precisely what it means to do so.  Forget any of the 
specifics, why is that singular goal not desirable?

> Niall


Frank W. Zammetti
Author of "Practical Ajax Projects With Java Technology"
  (2006, Apress, ISBN 1-59059-695-1)
and "JavaScript, DOM Scripting and Ajax Projects"
  (2007, Apress, ISBN 1-59059-816-4)
and "Practical DWR 2 Projects"
  (2008, Apress, ISBN 1-59059-941-1)
Java Web Parts -
  Supplying the wheel, so you don't have to reinvent it!

To unsubscribe, e-mail:
For additional commands, e-mail:

View raw message