On Wed, Aug 18, 2010 at 18:02, Sanjiva Weerawarana <sanj...@opensource.lk> wrote: > 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.
How does naming accomplish the goal of collaborative, consensus-based development? I thought that was why we were here. I hadn't heard that people and projects had to pay a "price" to be part of the Foundation. -g --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
