Jim Jagielski wrote: > > On Dec 23, 2006, at 11:16 AM, Justin Erenkrantz wrote: > >> I think it's a concern because the precedent puts the podling on the >> defensive and in the mind set of "oh, if there's a competing project, >> we won't accept you." The fact that there's a project already here >> that 'competes' is irrelevant to us and I don't want to confuse the >> podlings into thinking that's a criteria when it's certainly not. -- > > Ah, I see your point. My PoV is that it's better to nip > any such things in the bud first. This places those > who would complain on the defensive ;) > > But competition is a fact of the real world, and > for some podlings its a prime factor *for* its > inclusion. But it should never be a factor > for its rejection.
Depends. We shouldn't reject a podling with overlapping scope that differs from another podling in engineering / design paradigms. We bloody well should think twice before accepting a competing podling that differs mostly in personalities. Been there, done that, archived the bloodshed in apmail. When we have two competing communities because folks can't accept the simplest ASF meritocracy and let code speak for itself, one, the other, or both are broken :) ASF projects are unique. People can truly dislike others in the same project, and yet collaborate towards a common goal. Not that this is healthy for the people, but the projects and communities should survive personality conflicts when they are operating properly. --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
