+1 Very relevant, Morgan, as always.
As it stands, the Commons is a subproject like any other. The packages don't form a single, coherent product, but instead are being used by a muplicity of other products. We can all committ to and vote on all the packages here, just like we can in any other subproject. If we err, it should be on the side of doing. The Commons, like Jakarta, is a "Minimum Threshold Meritocracy". Personally, I think that is a Good Thing. -T. Morgan Delagrange wrote: > 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]> -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
