Jim Jagielski wrote:
IMO, code talks, bullshit walks. And I've been on both sides of the argument many times in many places.
Yeah right. So to summarize, we have 3 committers who are happy campers (2 of them which don't contribute much, as far as I know), and the rest of the committers are either do not care or are unhappy. Most also want a change in the development process, and as long as there's agreement on that and it respects the ASF principles, we should be able to do that.
It's fairly obvious that vetoes which "pack a lot of punch" haven't been taken very seriously. The first reaction is to start arguing that "the veto is not valid", and requalify technical reasons given as "non technical".
Rémy --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
