On 2/3/02 4:21 PM, "Paulo Gaspar" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Amazing work on HYPOTHETICAL situations. Well, it's a valid question given the governance model we are proposing. > > To simplify again, I do not agree with the negation of that statement > either. Maybe the most balanced situation is the one we already have > ...until it is proved to be bad. > > Still learning here. > > I am only sure that I am not so sure that the rules of the game > should change. > =;o) Except we keep ignoring that we *did* change the rules if you grant me the model of Commons as a 'mini-Jakarta' : - where the components map to the projects. - and the original 'three person committee' (that we never needed) was the PMC - the committer community is the individual component committers as a group If we kept the same model, we would have Commons as a 'organizing place' where we can bring bits of existing code and productize them, bring in new bits of code that we need, provide the sandbox for exploration and experimentation, and build a community of people interested in these kinds of things. However, in each case (except the sandbox), a component would have a defined set of committers that would be responsible for the direction and status of their component, and keep adding new committers and contributions and interest dictated. In our case, we did alter the model. It's sounds great - one for all and all for one - but I don't see that working out in practice. I am *not* suggesting it is a failure - we are still small enough that it has worked out well so far, but peter showed us one problem, and I expect that w/o addressing it, we are going to have to deal with it and like issues more and more often. geir > > Have fun, > Paulo > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Geir Magnusson Jr. [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] >> Sent: Sunday, February 03, 2002 8:18 PM >> To: Jakarta Commons Developers List >> Subject: Re: [Logging] [VOTE] Commons Logging 1.0 Release >> >> >> On 2/3/02 2:20 PM, "Paulo Gaspar" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> >>> My understanding is that you defend what I was defending before >>> "being converted" by Costin: >>> - That voting rights for packages NOT in the Sandbox should be >>> reserved to its contributors. >> >> To be frank, if a group of people put something together in the sandbox, I >> think it's their right to decide what to do with it within the constraints >> of the licensing :) >> >>> >>> Did I got it wrong? >>> >> >> No. That's a simplification, but it's right. >> >> I assume that you no longer agree with that statement? >> >> If so, do you agree with the negation of it? >> >> (dropping the sandbox clause for clarity - assume its there if >> you want - it >> really makes no fundamental difference) >> >> 1) Voting rights for packages should not be reserved for its contributors. >> >> 2) No voting rights for packages should be reserved for its contributors. >> >> Making bigger changes : >> >> 3) Voting rights for packages should be reserved for everyone but it's >> contributors. >> >> 4) Voting rights for packages should be reserved for everyone. >> >> Maybe #1 and #4 mean the same thing. >> >> #2 and #3 are clearly silly but #2 is a negation of what you used >> to believe >> :) >> >> If #4, how do you define everyone? If the conventional meaning, >> how do you >> manage such a thing so that the people with the vision and hard >> work get to >> have a say in their work product w/o having to be ready for large >> marketing >> campaigns? >> >> Or another way : should the people who do the work have control? >> >> Should they have control from hostile political forces? >> >> TOTALLY HYPOTHETICAL SITUATION : Suppose there were more log4j people in >> 'everyone' than logkit people. Are you suggesting that the log4j people >> should be able to ensure that logkit never does another release? >> -- Geir Magnusson Jr. [EMAIL PROTECTED] System and Software Consulting "Now what do we do?" -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
