Doesn't this kind of talk sound goofy to you all? Isn't this reference to the Apache Way sort of like a secret handshake and a silly hat? Let's say what the Struts Way is. It is not, I would strongly suggest even slightly related to the Apache Way. I am also strongly considering just never coming back here. I am getting just to sick of the plain and unvarinshed stupidity on this list.
On 4/25/06, Martin Cooper <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > 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] > > > > > > -- "You can lead a horse to water but you cannot make it float on its back." ~Dakota Jack~
