On Sat, 2 Feb 2002 08:48, Geir Magnusson Jr. wrote: > > Peter probably has nothing to do with some of the server components in > > Avalon, but he has a binding vote for them. How is that resolved? That > > is the same problem. > > I don't know enough about Avalon and Peter's role. Doesn't seem to be the > same problem if they are making a coherent server framework.
Avalon is no more or less coherent than Commons. > We aren't, right? Thats the theory... > >> I don't think there is *any* downside to that model, as > >> people who are committed and interested and want a role in a > >> component will get involved in what I understand the > >> traditional Apache/Jakarta way is... > > > > There is not a downside to that model, IMHO. That would have worked > > fine as well. But I do think that Commons has an advantage with the > > sandbox and the diverse group of committers. > > Both of which you would get with the common model - everyone has rights in > the sandbox (it's one singular CVS) and they are still as diverse a > community as they are now. privlidge to CVS != privlidge to vote Besides theres no formal voting infrastructure for sandbox I thought they were run like revolutions? -- Cheers, Pete The big mistake that men make is that when they turn thirteen or fourteen and all of a sudden they've reached puberty, they believe that they like women. Actually, you're just horny. It doesn't mean you like women any more at twenty-one than you did at ten. --Jules Feiffer (cartoonist) -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
