Wow... As far as I can tell, we have *never* been so tight arsed with anything else: not mod_proxy_html, mod_sed, mod_rewrite, mod_dumpio, mod_substitute, (add your favorite one here)... And especially not with someone who's been a PMC member for as long as Graham has (~10yrs).
I reiterate my +1s for accepting the code and stress that my preference is right in the main tree. On Feb 29, 2012, at 12:42 PM, William A. Rowe Jr. wrote: > On 2/29/2012 8:59 AM, André Malo wrote: >> On Wednesday 29 February 2012 04:11:35 William A. Rowe Jr. wrote: >>> >>> I withdraw this vote, reverting my position to -1, until collaboration and >>> respect for options and insights of fellow committers as well as project >>> decisions and votes can be consistently demonstrated. >> >> I always thought, you'd have to provide technical reasons for -1 votes (?). > > Let's take Roy's position on the attached vote discussion, it's relevant. > These new modules are certainly additions/deletions to httpd. > > It is crystal clear that a veto is valid. It is incumbent upon the coder > who makes a proposal to overcome objections. In this previous vote, some > dozen developers failed to make that case to Graham, and his veto stood. > > Now Graham comes to the project with three modules and a hope that > "this isn't a "code dump", my intention is to continue to develop and > support this moving forward, and hopefully expand the community around > them." > > He said the same thing about completing the LDAP abstraction half a decade ago > or more. Attempts to route around his failure were unsuccessful because of > his obstructionism. We are at a design impass with the community blocked on > some handwave and a commitment to redesign an api someday, but likely never. > > Nothing can be allowed in core on some "hope" of expanding a community. > Either there is collaboration and the code belongs at httpd, or there is > not collaboration and the code does not. There are sandboxes and there > are subprojects to begin that justification. Graham was offered that > resolution which HE originally proposed, and for two months, has refused > to act or acknowledge the demand that he revert his misfiled contribution. > > My veto to all three modules stands. If three committers with track records > of collaboration (meaning most everyone else here) step up with +1 votes that > includes their commitment to review and maintain one of these modules, seek > the software license grant, and to file the ip-clearance with > general@incubator, > I'm willing to relax my veto on creating that subproject. But not into a core > module until the subproject is successful. > > <Attached Message.eml>
