On Tue, 23 Dec 2003, Phil Steitz wrote:
> Greg Stein wrote: > <snip> > > > > How does J-C fit into this? What I see is a loosely knit group of > > developers each working on one or more components. There is definitely a > > feeling of community, but the codebases and the people working on them > > form discrete subgroups. As an easy example: the codec component really > > only has two committers on it. I'm not sure that constitutes a problem, > > but it also seems to indicate that the community != interested developers > > which means that those developers cannot necessarily do what they want > > (or believe is best) with the code that interests them. > > I disagree. The "discrete subgroups" are very fluid and there is a lot of > interaction and cross-pollination among them. Codec in fact has 8 people > listed as "committers." I have never seen an example where a commons > developer (committer or not) is unable to "do what they want...with the > code that interests them" because of community fragmentation. Sometimes > people disagree and some ideas are rejected by the community, but there is > nothing stopping any developer from getting involved in any commons > component. There are also *lots* more people than the [codec] committers > who read and comment on [codec] posts. Yep. I try to stay on top of all of the 'Children of Utils' components, which includes codec. I was surprised that I've only made the one commit to codec in its current cvs location. Hen --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
