Nice, well-thought out post. I was a 'Peter' then and now. It would be interesting to understand why you claim the so-called 'CLOSED MODEL' restricts creativity and progress, as this is the model that Apache has used successfully (so it appears).
geir On 2/1/02 6:16 PM, "Morgan Delagrange" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Sam Ruby" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: "Jakarta Commons Developers List" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Sent: Friday, February 01, 2002 4:10 PM > Subject: Re: [Logging] [VOTE] Commons Logging 1.0 Release > > >> Costin Manolache wrote: >>> >>> I believe we would be better served with the commons model in >>> apache/jakarta. >> >> That is my opinion too. >> >> - Sam Ruby >> > > Which actually raises a good point. When Commons was first proposed, many > were of the opinion that Commons is too _closed_, not too open. > > Some developers proposed that all Jakarta members should get Karma to > Commons automatically. In essence, you would have been able to commit > directly to the Commons repository at any time, even if you had made no > contributions to the Commons before. I believe this was Costin's original > stance; I don't know if he still believes this is the best course for the > project. For convenience's sake, let's call this the OPEN MODEL. > > The other end of the spectrum was Peter's opinion: that each component > should be run like a mini Jakrata subproject, complete with separate commit > and voting rights. We'll say this is the CLOSED MODEL. > > The orginaztion which we finally agreed upon (a majority, but not a > consensus), was in-between. You needed to earn commit rights to Commons, > but once you were in, you could commit to anything you wanted. I suppose > you could call this "partially open", or "somewhat closed"...how about the > MIXED MODEL. That was my preferred model at the time, and I still believe > that it is working quite well for us. > > In my opinion, this approach builds the strongest community. The Open Model > provides the _largest_ community, but it's really just the Jakarta community > itself, which is not always the most coherent, unified organization; in fact > we never totally agree on anything, except "SourceForge sucks". ;) The > Closed Model provides the _tightest_ community, but it's so small that IMO > progress and creativity would be limited. I think the Mixed Model provides > the best compromise between size and coherence. > > Anyway, the most important thing is that the current approach seems to be > _working_. Commons components are part of a surprising number of other > projects already (thanks Gump!), and the complaints on our list about > interface changes and other incompatibilities are relatively few. What > problem are we trying to solve? That Peter can vote against a project if he > doesn't think it's a good idea? To me, it seems like the Closed Model > actually causes more deadlocks than it prevents: less committers == more > influential votes. > > - Morgan > > P.S. About a jillion emails have rolled by since I started writing this. > How do you people find the time?!!? Well, it looks like my email is still > relevant, so here goes... > > > > _________________________________________________________ > > Do You Yahoo!? > > Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com > > > > > -- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > -- Geir Magnusson Jr. [EMAIL PROTECTED] System and Software Consulting "He who throws mud only loses ground." - Fat Albert -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
