[This actually belongs to the "Open Community" thread on [EMAIL PROTECTED] Oh well.]
On Wed, 29 Jan 2003, Dirk-Willem van Gulik wrote: > Though - and on a different topic - there is one thing nagging me here; > and that is this concept that the 'public' has a 'right' to be involved in > discussions within a community; without being yet part of that community. > > Just because our software is free (as in free beer) does not mean that the > process behind it needs to be free (as in speech) and open to all. I'm not sure where to start on this. 1. How do you define our "community"? As I said, I define it to include everyone here: http://www.apache.org/foundation/roles.html. It certainly extends beyond those with commit priveleges. 2. Apache software is free as is speach and free as in beer. I'm not sure what your last paragraph is trying to say in that regard. 3. You are correct, that does not necessarily imply an open development process. But an open development process has always been an important part of the Apache culture for as long as I've been here. It is how we attract new participants; it is how we stay connected to users; it is part of the mission of keeping the Internet open. 4. Nobody is saying hold an Internet-wide vote for the board of directors. Another important part of Apache culture is the meritocracy. But that does not conflict with openness, and, in fact, I think the two are very complementary. And what does the open process hurt? The only argument that I've seen so far is signal-noise ratio. This is always a problem on any mailing list, and we've managed it very successfully on new-httpd/[EMAIL PROTECTED] by having a tightly focused scope and enforcing it. (Yes, there have been some rare exceptions, which I will not name; but overall the list is very open and works very well.) I don't see why this would be any more difficult on [EMAIL PROTECTED] Joshua.
