On 2/1/02 5:04 PM, "[EMAIL PROTECTED]" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Fri, 1 Feb 2002, Geir Magnusson Jr. wrote: > >> On 2/1/02 3:43 PM, "Scott Sanders" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> >>> How do you enforce this? How do you handle this in the Avalon world? I >>> consider (only just recently, BTW), that a committer in Commons is a >>> committer to the entire commons codebase, including the sandbox. >> >> And that's the problem that I think peter is pointing out - that people can >> have binding votes on projects that they have nothing to do with... > > If he votes, that means it has somethig to do with the component. Not at all. He voted to make a point. He had nothing to do with that codebase (except the influence from logkit) > > Peter does have a lot of experience in logging - so his vote and feedback > is as valid as any other developer that participates in the common-logger > development. It is in fact great if Peter sends his -1 and arguments on > the common-logger, as this provides feedback and is a valuable contribution in > itself. > > It would be far worse if Peter would not be able to vote. > > So the model works very well. Huh? He was making a point - he first stated some of his issues, and then someone told him that because he wasn't involved in the component, his 'vote' didn't matter. He then added himself to a file, and then his vote was as valid as anyones. I have little experience in logging. I could have added myself to the file, and voted too, and my vote would count as much as peter's. > >> One of the motivations for commons was a place for small*, discrete >> components to be able to be packaged and presented for reuse by both Jakarta >> projects and developers at large. > > I think the main motivation was to promote sharing and cooperation. > Community is more important than code - and if Peter added himself to the > list of commons-logger contributors, than that's a good step :-) If he was serious, it would be a great step. I donšt believe he was :) And I'm not sure if that was the 'main motivation'. I think we all had our motivations, and all were slightly different, all centered around making a place to bring some of the great, hidden codebases in jakarta out for all, and to provide a 'neutral ground' where projects could work together on things. > > The reverse doesn't seem to work that well - I'm not sure how many > commons contributors are going to send enough patches to logkit to > become commiters there, and then get the right to vote. And it seems > people prefer to participate and use projects where they are not just > users, but can be commiters and express opinions and vote if they > need to. Sure. Agreed. > > >> I too believed then and still believe now that we would be better served >> with the conventional Apache/Jakarta committer model in Commons, where each >> component is a well defined group of interested people, a part of the larger >> community as well, of course. > > I believe we would be better served with the commons model in > apache/jakarta. Cool - Do you want to be nominated for PMC on that platform? This is a serious offer... -- Geir Magnusson Jr. [EMAIL PROTECTED] System and Software Consulting Java : the speed of Smalltalk with the simple elegance of C++... -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
