The vote was on a release, and the vote passed. An issue regarding attribution was resolved. The committers are still honing some fine points, but the package is on it's way.
Apparently, Peter feels that "I have been stymied by "committers" who vetoed things but had never done anywork and never intended doing any work on something. It aint something I am not willing to invite again." and so has problems with our politics. Personally, I would never permit any veto not based on the technical merits stand. The Committers are a jury, but there is an avenue of appeal. Happily, that avenue is rarely pursued. Since the purpose of ASF and Jakarta is to permit codebases to survive their developers, it is not reasonable to say that you can only vote on code that you developed. Eventually, we will all become custodians of code that we did not create, but must support and maintain. -Ted. [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > Yikes. A mountain of email. > > I've not seen any discussion about how Peter's -1 should be taken? It > seems that in a normal comitter only project, the -1 would lead to > discussion, if still not resolved it would lead to argument and then to > breaking away and forking etc. > > However Peter is not actively coding this component (or at least isn't a > driving force on it) and assuming his -1 to be a complaint with the > release/feature change, how should it be resolved? > > I don't think the only answer should be that members of the Commons > community have no input on project's they're not actively involved in, > the idea of the community being involved is an interesting experiment. > > But how should disagreemnt be dealt with? And how will we handle the > system as more committers are added? With somethign like Cactus, I assume > that the committers to Cactus still remain in Commons, so the committers > base will increase with more sub-components. How does this scale? > > When a sub-component is branched off as a top level project, should it > resort to a normal Jakarta voting style, or continue to use the previous > one? If Digester splits as a new Jakarta project, do the members of > Commons still vote? > > And lastly, what happened to the release? Is it still waiting on the -1 > being resolved in another thread? > > Bay > > On Fri, 1 Feb 2002, Geir Magnusson Jr. wrote: > > > On 2/1/02 5:56 PM, "Ted Husted" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > Scott Sanders wrote: > > >>> privlidge to CVS != privlidge to vote > > >> > > >> OK. Problem solved. > > > > > > > > > Committing is ~how~ we vote. > > > > > > > Not in Peter's case. He just said > > > > "-1" > > > > The only commit he did was adding his name to a file. So pedantically, you > > are right, I guess, but I don't think that was what you really meant. > > > > > We don't vote on plans. We vote on actions. > > > > I don't know what this means. > > > > > > -- > > 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]> > > > > > > -- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> -- Ted Husted, Husted dot Com, Fairport NY USA. -- Java Web Development with Struts. -- Tel +1 585 737-3463. -- Web http://www.husted.com/struts/ -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
