On Tue, April 25, 2006 2:32 pm, Martin Cooper said: > One thing I'll add, though. The problem appears to be perception, and > reality doesn't, in my opinion and as evidenced below, match that > perception. Therefore the solution should be addressing the _perception_ > of > the way Struts is working, and changing perception does not require > changes > to the _reality_ of the way it's working. > > And one question I would ask: What, exactly, is the end goal? More > committers? More nominations? If bringing in a new committer every other > month, as we've been doing, isn't enough, what is? As other people have > pointed out elsewhere, more committers doesn't necessarily translate to > more > activity on the code base, either, as we've seen in the past.
Speaking for myself, I did not have any specific end goal in mind when I wrote the proposal. However, if I were to come up with one now, I would say it is simply to help ensure that Action1 does not die, and more than that, is allowed to evolve. I know it isn't going away, I know support isn't being dropped, I know all that. I also know that Ted has said he intends to follow through on the roadmap. I applaude him for that. Do the other committers share that conviction? If so, then your right, this is nothing but an issue of perception. The way to fix that, as others have said recently, is simply to communicate plans better. That should do the trick. If no one shares Ted's goals though, and there are other non-committers that do, let them in to help Ted :) I don't have any specific numbers in mind, and I don't think they matter. If 100 new committers are added this month but nothing comes of it, what was the point? I say those that really want to contribute can be identified and invited. I know now that anyone can nominate someone. I didn't know that previously. That takes a lot of the wind out of the sails of my proposal. > On the topic of voting in public, I am very much opposed. It's not just a > case of saving face for a nominee who is ultimately rejected. A public > vote > affects the way people vote, as well. In a private vote, someone might > object strongly, along the lines of "-1 - that guy's code is a pile of > crap". But would the same person voice that same opinion in a public vote > on > a mailing list of a couple of thousand people, and which will be archived > for the world to see, forever? Perhaps a few would, but many would not. > They > would more likely keep quiet, the end result being that Mr. Pile O'Crap > becomes a committer because the only people who voted were the ones in > favour. IMHO, that is A Very Bad Thing. And as I stated in other replies, I tend to agree with you on this. However, without knowing why anyone is ever rejected, how are those of us that might aspire to some day be invited ever know what we should be doing? More importantly than that though, how can we know, FOR SURE, that the decisions are not made on things that they shouldn't be? "That guy's code is a pile of crap" would stike me as an invalid reason... "His code is hard to follow, would be hard to maintain, does not adhere to our coding standards and seems to indicate he doesn't know how to use collections properly" is a much more valid, and far less hurtful, way to say the same thing. I would hope that in public or private, basic rules of decency are followed and that "That guy's code is a pile of crap" wouldn't be something that would be said anyway. Thanks for your input Martin! > Martin Cooper Frank --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
