www-community mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Andrew C. Oliver" <acoli...@apache.org>
Subject Re: Welcome to Apache Letter
Date Wed, 30 Oct 2002 15:50:32 GMT
from www.m-w.com -

2: right something to which one has a just claim: as *a* *:* the power 
or privilege to which one is justly entitled *b *(1) *:* the interest 
that one has in a piece of property -- often used in plural <mineral 
/right//s/> (2) /plural/ *:* the property interest possessed under law 
or custom and agreement in an intangible thing especially of a literary 
and artistic nature <film /right//s/of the novel>

*1 privilege:* a right or immunity granted as a peculiar benefit, 
advantage, or favor *: PREROGATIVE 
/especially/ *:* such a right or immunity attached specifically to a 
position or an office

Generally the distinction is that rights can be defended and privileges 
cannot.  So in exchange for my contributions and stewardship over a 
project I'm granted the right to help determine its direction.  In the 
event I feel my rights are violated I have the abillity to take my 
cookies and go home, and hence ceasing my contributions and stewardship, 
fork the codebase and continue on with a competing project. (good 
example: openBSD freeBSD netBSD....)

Granted the seriousness of my doing this depends on the value of my 
contributions (which is actually supports this more than weakens)..  

I know I'm not supposed to even say such a thing, but the point is not 
that I'm planning to do such a thing but that committers do have 
"rights" that can be defended.  Hence it is both a right and a privilege.  


Stefano Mazzocchi wrote:

> Peter Donald wrote:
>> On Wed, 30 Oct 2002 11:48, Stefano Mazzocchi wrote:
>> >Peter Donald wrote:
>> >
>> >>Committers have no rights, just privlidges.
>> >
>> >What about the right to place a binding vote and propose somebody for
>> >commit access? aren't they rights?
>> Anyone can propose somebody for commit access (they may not be able 
>> to vote
>> but that is besides the point) :)
>> But a "binding vote" is a privlidge. If that privlidge is abused then it
>> should be reoved. ie Technically I believe I could still vote on Cocoon
>> (unless 6 months "retiring" has been acted on) when I shouldn't be 
>> allowed
>> to. If I came in and decided that I didn't want cocoon to do something
>> because;
>>  * I had my own pet xml framework that I wanted to promote above Cocoon
>> or
>>  * I wanted to hurt some Cocoon committer because they had pissed me off
>> or
>>  * I wanted to force cocoon to adopt my pet toolkit
>> or
>> ...  ...
>> And lets also assume I can come up with a valid technical reason 
>> (should not
>> be hard). Do I still get to vote on this? Or to be more precise - 
>> should I
>> get a vote on this?
>> Or an even simpler example. When the ECM was being developed I 
>> pointed out
>> several design decisions that I believed were mind numbingly stupid. 
>> I could
>> quite easily figure out technical reasons to block its development and I
>> certainly helped enough to be classified as participating (I suspect 
>> me and
>> leif have been the most active on it over last couple of months). 
>> Even then -
>> do you think I have the "right" to veto changes for some petty 
>> vindictive
>> reasons?
>> Nope. Voting is definetly a privlidge, not a right. People who abuse 
>> it by
>> using it as a weapon should have their privs yoinked.
> Gotcha.
> You're right, I was wrong. Voting is definately a priviledge :)
> Just one thing, if the voting rules remain the same since I wrote them 
> in the java.apache constitution, technically, only committers can 
> propose a person for commit access.
> In practice, there is probably no difference, but I think it's a good 
> statement of IoC there as well and I like it.

View raw message