On 4/25/06, Frank W. Zammetti <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Tue, April 25, 2006 3:10 pm, Martin Cooper said: > >> 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. ;-) > > If your saying that the "community" is not only composed of committers, > PMC members, etc., then yes, I do agree :)
and of course, i sent me email before reading these because the thread is moving so fast. ugh, defining words can be such a pain. :) for the record, when i use "community == them that do the work" in my email, i am referring to those who make the decisions. this is pretty much the committers and contributors (note again that contributors != patch submitters). of course, there is the broader sense of community that includes those who have an interest in the development of a project, but in the Apache Way, their opinions are not binding. oh, and i realized that calling them "irrelevant politics" was totally wrong since the "decision making community" does care about the opinions of the broader "interested-in-development community" and even the "user community". committers and contributors are not at all immune to ego-stroking and the politics that accompany it. instead of "irrelevant politics", i ought to have just said "politics". ;-) --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
