On 4/25/06, Frank W. Zammetti <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On Tue, April 25, 2006 2:22 pm, Paul Speed said: > > > > > > Frank W. Zammetti wrote: > > > >> > >> You are of course right about this. But, much like taking the ideas > >> about > >> inventory control and order processing and such from Dell and starting > >> your own business is possible, the likelihood that you would get > >> anything > >> but a small fraction of the attention and business that Dell gets is > >> slim > >> to none. > > > > Not to sidle in where I don't really belong but perhaps this last > > sentence exemplifies the disconnect with "getting it"? If one wanted to > > take the code from an apache project and do something else with it then > > all they care about is the something else they want to do. It isn't > > really a "business"... the code exists for the code's sake. > > You aren't chiming in where you don't belong... if your interested, you > belong, at least as far as I'm concerned :) > > I think there is definitely something to your point, and the analogy may > have been a bit flawed. However... > > I don't think it is accurate to think that ego doesn't play a part in just > about everything that just about everyone does. We all want to see our > work benefit others. For most of us I believe its because we genuinely > like the feeling we get when someone writes us and says "hey, your code > really helped me, thank you!". I know speaking for myself, it makes my > day when I get those eMails! Part of it is simply the ego stroke of > someone essentially saying your work is worth something, but I don't > believe that is the big factor for most people. I know it isn't for me, > and I don't think it is for the Struts team. I think the thank you note > means as much to them as it does me. > > If you agree with that, then the idea of forking the code and doing it > with the belief that you aren't going to reach a wide audience because the > Apache version continues to be what people go to, is not appealing. In > that regard, if we substitute ego for money in the analogy, I think it > still works (although just saying ego is dangerous because as I tried to > illustrate above, I think there is good ego and bad ego). > > > I'm not a committer but I've been following this list and the tomcat dev > > list since the last millennium... I think before there even was a struts > > 1.0. I can't speak in an official capacity, I can't even pretend, but > > here is my take on the "apache way". > > Isn't kind of interesting that there can be more than one "take" on it > though? > > > For an open source project to exist you need code. All of apache > > projects seem to exist to benefit the code... and by extension the > > documentation. Though, even without documentation you still have the > > code. All of the other stuff is extraneous or the life support system > > depending on how you look at it. I think most of the "apache way" is > > partially considering it to be extraneous... in a "if the code goes sour > > and you have nothing" sort of way. It's definitely symbiotic but > > without the code, you have nothing. You might as well be chatting on > > myspace.com. > > Hehe, considering some of the recent threads around here, posting on > myspace.com might actually be safer! :-) LOL > > > So, the only reason to be a committer is to contribute to the > > codebase... and all other committers have to live with each other. The > > only reason to be able to cast a binding vote is if you have a stake in > > the code... ie: are a committer. > > This is where I'm not sure I agree... why can you only have a stake in the > code, or in the community even, if you are a committer? And certainly the > "community" is often touted as the most important part of any ASF > project... it's just that "community" in that context means the committers > only, which is where I disagree with the Apache Way I guess.
No, that's not correct. The community is, as you put it earlier, "anyone who has an active interest in how the project develops". So you actually agree with the Apache Way. ;-) -- Martin Cooper Simply putting code out there and sharing your work is great, but going > back to a point I made some weeks ago, I beleive there is a responsibility > that comes along with it when you do that. Whether they should or not, > people become dependent on the project... not in a cocaine kind of way of > course, but they are "counting on you" basically. That to me implies > taking into consideration their needs and wants. Not above your own of > course, but to some degree. > > > Bottom line: if a person isn't contributing to code and documentation in > > a way that the other committers are comfortable with then that person > > shouldn't be a committer on the project. There is no other reason for > > being a committer. > > This I absolutely agree with, and it was the reason my proposal didn't try > to change that. I would NEVER propose that the PMC not have the final say > in who is invited. It just to me seems right for that to be the case. > But, I still see nothing wrong with being able to say "hey, PMC, we think > this guy or gal would be a good addition, please consider him". > > > My personal (and probably unneeded) opinion on the original subject: > > > > From my perspective, nominations don't matter so much... as I recall > > someone could nominate themselves. If that person hasn't been > > contributing code then there is no reason to think they will become a > > committer. > > That is correct. I frankly was not aware that someone could do that, Ted > pointed it out to me. As I replied previously, that indeed covers the > first principle of my proposal. I always prefer things like that be more > concrete, i.e., rules layed out in document form, but even failing that I > think the principle is followed, so I'm happy. > > > It would be nice if the process were a little more transparent as it > > would be interesting to know who was proposed, accepted, rejected, etc. > > even if we didn't know why. (Though, even counter to that it was nice > > to know that someone who contributed to another apache project and > > stomped all over my contributed implementation because they didn't > > bother to patch to head was at least a controversial nomination. But > > that's sort of personal and isolated reason for wanting to see the dirty > > laundry.) > > I still have the concerns about people being embarassed by this. However, > I think the idea of a nominee accepting the nomination first is a fair > idea. Putting aside the original proposal, how would that simple change, > along with opening the vote process discussion for all to see, sit with > everyone? > > > I guess I have trouble seeing how things could be improved much by your > > proposal... especially since I understood there to be nothing wrong with > > nominations coming from anywhere. It was just explained to be easier > > with a committer's support. I don't follow this list too closely, so > > maybe I missed someone who has been contributing lots of stuff and still > > was overlooked. > > Agreed, once Ted explained that point to me, the proposal isn't quite as > strong as I thought at first. I still think there is the issue of > transparency that could do with further discussion, but it seems the > nomination part of it is, more or less, already present. Codifying it > would be nice, but I can live with it not being written anywhere. > > Thanks for commenting, you are always welcome as far as I'm concerned :) > > > -Paul > > Frank > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > >
