On 5/21/06, Raphaël Luta <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Coach Wei wrote:
<snip>
I was under the impression that a review of the code base was not a > requirement for incubation, especially since the code base could > significantly change as soon as others are involved with it -- remember, > this isn't about keeping the code the way it is now -- it's > about using it as a jumping off point for whatever is the best cross-browser, > declarative Ajax framework we all can come up with. > AFAIK, a code review is not a requirement but it *is* usual practice to provide a code drop along the proposal when the code is not public yet.
(those not interested in social ecology should skip this post ;-) the formal requirements represent a consensus on the minimal necessary (but not sufficient) criteria for entry. people casting votes may (and often do) have their own personal criteria or policies. these may be objective or subjective, public or private. that's cool. apache usually runs with as few rules as possible (minimum friction). the check and balances are human. over time, commonly held opinions may result in (additional) de facto requirements but these are not de juro and can change as people's opinions change. inconsistency is the price paid for democracy. it's healthy (and normal) to have these discussions spring up from time to time. they often lead to better quality process and code. those ideas which prove useful tend to be adopted more widely and those which do not wither and die. but it is a little confusing at first... - robert
