On Tue, Aug 17, 2010 at 11:13 PM, Daniel Shahaf <d...@daniel.shahaf.name>wrote:
> > > When I saw this month's board report for Subversion, I was taken aback > > that the board is expected to follow the terminology used by only one > > project. Really? The board, which has used the same terms for 10++ > > years, is now going to hear reports of full committers and partial > > committers? What do we do when another project comes in and uses yet > > different terms for the same concept? Do we now make a translation > > manual for everyone in Apache to use? > > > > Subversion *has* used these terms for a few years too. Should we just > stop using the terms we've used for N years? > Yes .. that's part of the price of being in the ASF! We have forced this on other projects many times (including often forcing change of name) and I don't understand why Subversion doesn't need to follow the same processes and terminology. This should've been dealt with during incubation in fact. (Not sure why its copied to gene...@incubator since Subversion has graduated ... but I saw and commented because it is.) Sanjiva. -- Sanjiva Weerawarana, Ph.D. Founder, Director & Chief Scientist; Lanka Software Foundation; http://www.opensource.lk/ Founder, Chairman & CEO; WSO2, Inc.; http://www.wso2.com/ Member; Apache Software Foundation; http://www.apache.org/ Director; Sahana Software Foundation; http://www.sahanafoundation.org/ Visiting Lecturer; University of Moratuwa; http://www.cse.mrt.ac.lk/ Blog: http://sanjiva.weerawarana.org/
