Jochen, you wrote:
> Quoting Greg Wilkins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > > > However, open process is at least as important as open software. > > Agreed. But the ASF has just given a bad example on this (IMO). > Following the discussions on Geronimo in the last days, my > impression is that a lot of decisions (in particular architecture) > has already made behind the scenes. I do not even know who took > those decisions, or how they look like. I think that this is a very unfair comment, and would like to take some time to explain why I believe this. Apache doesn't have a simple way to start a project from scratch, but does have mechanisms for accepting existing projects. I expect that it is simpler and more productive for the sponsoring individuals and the Apache process to start the project first, and then have it accepted into the Apache incubator. There is little reason why any aspect of a project cannot be changed retrospectively should the community reach agreement, those reasons are pretty much limited to conforming with the project's charter, the legal obligations of the ASF, practical constraints imposed by infrastructure, the rules governing contributors roles[1], and whatever additional rules are imposed by the project itself. In this case the governing project is the incubator, but if or when geronimo becomes a fully fledged Apache project those rules themselves are open to modification by the community through its project management commitee. Once geronimo has become an Apache incubator sub-project it will be governed by Apache's rules and processes, therefore no condition that pre-exists the creation of the project is treated any differently from any condition arising afterwards, if you don't like decisions that have been made when the project was a private one you will be at liberty to comment on them and lobby for change, or if you are elected as a commiter you will be able to make proposals and cast binding votes. For example the rules governing Jakarta and inherited by Jakarta sub-projects are documented here http://jakarta.apache.org/site/guidelines.html other project have similar processes[2], it is this, and other interpretations of "The Apache Way" that characterises the management of Apache projects. One final point I'd make is that Apache doesn't pretend to have entirely open management, Apache has to exist in the real world of lawyers and corporations, but it does exist to foster collaborative and consensus based process. This commitment can be best illustrated by refering you to the very first paragraph of the ASF website[3]. "The Apache Software Foundation provides support for the Apache community of open-source software projects. The Apache projects are characterized by a collaborative, consensus based development process, an open and pragmatic software license, and a desire to create high quality software that leads the way in its field. We consider ourselves not simply a group of projects sharing a server, but rather a community of developers and users." I've been part of this community for a bit more than a couple of years now, and I can assure you that I've never experienced any decisions which have been sucessfully imposed without either consensus or a majority vote of the appropriate constituency, and remember this is a meritocracy, to join the constituency and help make the decsions you care about all you really have to do is to demonstrate your willingness and ability to participate at the appropriate level. d. [1] http://www.apache.org/foundation/roles.html [2] http://nagoya.apache.org/wiki/apachewiki.cgi?PoliciesAndProcedures [2] http://www.apache.org/ --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
