On Feb 29, 2012, at 9:42 AM, 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.
Yes, but they are modules. Hence, their mere existence in our tree is not a technical reason to exclude them. We have a modular architecture so that people who don't want a module don't have to build it. In fact, it was exactly this type of argument in 1995 that caused rst to focus on creating a modular architecture. If there were dependencies or license conditions brought in that somehow harmed the server without the module being active, then that would be a technical objection. Traditionally, we have allowed any module that has at least one willing volunteer committer to maintain it. And I agree with Jim, none of the subprojects have been as successful as just placing the code in the main tree. I have no idea why mod_fcgi is in a subproject. mod_ftp is there because it isn't an HTTP server. mod_aspdotnet had all sorts of licensing issues that I never quite figured out. I see no reason not to commit mod_firehose, though I haven't had a chance to look at the code myself. Nor am I willing to respect a veto war based on the impact of past vetos. Now, if you'll excuse me, I have at least two other walls to bang my head on today ... ....Roy
