Jeff Turner wrote:
> +1 on peace, lurrve and understanding. But that's kinda hard to enforce..
>
> The definition of -1, from http://jakarta.apache.org/site/decisions.html,
> says that "no veto can be overruled", and that the vetoee's only recourse
> is to "lobby the person who cast the veto". Tough luck if they prove
> lobby-resistant.
But also:
"All vetos must contain an explanation of why the veto is appropriate.
Vetos with no explanation are void."
Vetos are made to block things that cause problems, their use as "I
don't really like the code, it could cause maybe problems" is misuse
IMHO of the spirit and the meaning of the rules.
"Voters intending to veto an action item should make their opinions
known to the group immediately so that the problem can be remedied as
early as possible. "
The one who vetos should IMO work with the other person to find a common
solution.
> If it were my changes being vetoed by some complete bastard ;) I'd route
> around the problem. Commit the changes to a branch, and bring up the
> issue at another time. Add a README.txt to the project root, saying "Hey,
> there's this FOO branch where I've been committing stuff that committer P
> doesn't agree with. Come play if you like". Imagine: if *everyone*
> agrees with you, eventually only the vetoer will be left on the CVS head,
> developing in isolation. And when the finally crack, it's only one CVS
> command to make another branch the head.
This is an option to consider.
It's about the rules4revolutionaries thinking.
But it always brings to fractures in the community, see the Tomcat 3/4
story.
> The HALF_BRANCHING.txt file in Excalibur CVS describes how to branch just
> a few files, and create a script that allows others to easily adopt your
> branch.
>
> As a solution, it's inferior to P,L & U, but better than simply
> disregarding the rules about vetos, or giving up and abandoning Avalon.
There is another point.
Let me tell you all what I think. I may be wrong, but I'm free to
express my opinions.
I think that Phoenix is an very good program.
I think that Fortress and Merlin have a very good potential.
I'm sure that the multiple avalon repositories are a serious problem for
Avalon, because they fracture the community instead of keeping it together.
I don't like that Peter Donald thinks that Phoenix is "his code".
If Stefano taught me something, is that code in CVS is just of all, not
of the original committer.
That a veto cannot be used indefinitely and systematically to block a
community, part of it, or the work of another coder.
That people on the list must work together to achieve a common goal.
I think that Peter Donald is a very good coder.
Heck, he has done large chunks of Phoenix, redefined big parts of
Avalon, and is helping to make Ant2.
I think that Peter Donald is not good at discussing
things with other people.
How come everyone else on this list comes to an agreement at some point
while Peter lately is really hard on -1s and "the sky will fall"?
How come since Peter came to Avalon have important Avalon coders and
thinkers left the group after heated discussions with Peter Donald?
I have read some of your mails from the archive, Peter, and at times you
have had the same feeling that others have with you in these moments
with others.
And that others have alienated code from you just "because it comes from
Peter Donald".
Don't do the same error.
Collaborate.
I know that this is a strange letter, it seems like a rant agains Peter
Donald.
Well, let me tell you that if I didn't like Peter, I would not have used
my time to write this letter.
I hope you understand, Peter.
--
Nicola Ken Barozzi [EMAIL PROTECTED]
- verba volant, scripta manent -
(discussions get forgotten, just code remains)
---------------------------------------------------------------------
--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
