On 2/1/02 5:20 PM, "Peter Donald" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 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. Really - you are saying that the parts of Avalon have no organized relationship? Or that the relationships are *exactly equal* to that of the organized relationships in 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? ? I don't follow. What I was saying is that Commons could still retain the sandbox as a "no voting, no releasing, do what you want with who you want" work area... -- Geir Magnusson Jr. [EMAIL PROTECTED] System and Software Consulting "They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." - Benjamin Franklin -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
