Are definitions of cat A and B and others listed anywhere? I searched but failed.
I assume Cat A = permissive and Cat B = copyleft? or? On Fri, Aug 2, 2013 at 6:54 PM, Stephen Connolly < stephen.alan.conno...@gmail.com> wrote: > Correct. And it would be subject to the same CTR and potential veto if Cat > A. If Cat B and being added to core then you'd have a mandatory vote by the > PMC where the majority *of the whole PMC* are required to approve. > > The rational being, a Cat A licensed dependency can always be forked into > Maven if we need to. > > On Friday, 2 August 2013, Igor Fedorenko wrote: > > > Is this really specific to PMC? Can't a regular developer like myself do > > the same, i.e. setup a project elsewhere, then commit <dependency> to > > maven core? > > > > -- > > Regards, > > Igor > > > > On 2013-08-02 8:29 PM, Paul Benedict wrote: > > > > I've stated from the beginning of this thread that it's impossible to > > prevent someone from developing outside of Apache. I stand by that still. > > That can't be prevented and any attempt will fail since it's not > practical. > > > > If my words today aren't clear, I'll try again. My stance isn't about > > halting developing elsewhere, but to halt what I (and maybe some others) > > perceive as a way of getting around the Apache community. > > > > I won't use your "ultra whizzbang high performance logging" :-) example > > because it doesn't fit what my concern; but imagine an existing component > > (I won't name any) that is critical and Maven's existence and Maven can't > > function without it. It's very easy for any PMC member to go to another > OSS > > community, develop it, and then kind of leave the other PMCs with no real > > "choice" but to use it because the code realizes the future of Maven. > Those > > other PMCs are really backed into a corner; they have no real recourse to > > preventing this, lest Maven development is simply halted altogether. The > > other OSS community has other committers, other mailing lists, other > > deliberations, etc. Community work and input becomes marginalized here. > > > > Does this make sense to you? That kind of community-splitting effort > needs > > to stop and that's what I am trying to address. > > > > Cheers, > > Paul > > > > > > > > On Fri, Aug 2, 2013 at 11:10 AM, Stephen Connolly < > > stephen.alan.conno...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > We cannot stop somebody from developing something outside of Apache. > > > > So I could go off and write a High Performance Logging API... now I could > > be doing that because I want to foist that Logging API on Maven... or I > > could be doing it as an experiment that, if successful, I may offer for > > Maven to consume... or I could be doing it because I need it for my Day > > Job... > > > > We cannot know the reasons why somebody is doing something outside of > > Maven... we can ask, but we cannot *know* if the answer we are given is > > truthful. > > > > So anyway, I now have this ultra whizzbang high performance logging API > and > > I am aware of some deficit in the logging performance of Maven, so I spin > > up a private fork (it could be a hidden private fork, or it could be a > > public one... doesn't matter) and integrate the logging API and low and > > behold I see a whopping X% improvement... so I want to bring that back to > > Maven... > > > > Is there anything wrong with the above? > > > > If the library I created is under a Category A license and open source > and > > I go with CTR and nobody vetos my commit... we have consensus... why do > we > > need to go all Iron Fist and require a vote? > > > > We already have established tools: review of commits, vetos on commits, > > mandatory votes for Category B dependencies... > > > > Do we really need *more* processes and procedures to follow? > > > > On 2 August 2013 16:51, Paul Benedict <pbened...@apache.org> wrote: > > > > I don't understand the iron hand analogy. I was expressing the use of a > > vote to allow or disallow critical development outside of Apache. The > > > > vote > > > > would lead to a consensus, no? > > > > > > On Fri, Aug 2, 2013 at 10:41 AM, Stephen Connolly < > > stephen.alan.conno...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > On 2 August 2013 16:32, Paul Benedict <pbened...@apache.org> wrote: > > > > Furthermore, I'd like to see explicit procedural rules on Maven Core > > > > and > > > > forking. For example, if there's a critical component needing > > > > development > > > > for Core, and a PMC expresses that such development will be done > > > > outside > > > > of > > > > ------------------------------**------------------------------**--------- > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@maven.apache.org > > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@maven.apache.org > > > > > > -- > Sent from my phone >
