At 10:33 07.01.2002 -0800, Jon Scott Stevens wrote: >on 1/7/02 10:29 AM, "Jim Scott" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> IMHO, until the documentation is made part of the formal committing process, >> the jakarta tools will only be valuable to the people who developed them. >> >> I know that I am opening myself up to a serious flame, but that is the way I >> see it. >> >> Jim Scott > >No flame. That is a really good suggestion and one of the better $0.00 I >have heard in a long time... > >The bigger issue would then to be to have Sam (the current PMC chair and >person with the potential for authority) to take authority and mandate such >an action over Jakarta.
Excellent topic. Much more neutral than code conventions. Who is going to judge the quality of documentation and enforce such a rule if it is ever enunciated? Let us instate a system based on referendum, where the shareholders can directly intervene in making laws. By "shareholders", I mean developers with commit rights. To avoid voting on trivialities, a referendum would require the support of at least five committers to acquire the "valid" status. After a possible but short delay, a valid referendum is submitted to shareholder vote. The result of the vote determines whether the referendum is accepted or rejected. An accepted referendum becomes law of Jakarta. This procedure is undeniably heavy. However, so is debating issues without ever deciding. The advantage of a referendum is that once a decision is made you get peer pressure for free. Not PMC pressure, not chairman pressure but peer pressure! Too heavy handed? OK, what is the alternative? -- Ceki Gülcü - http://qos.ch -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
