Jeff Turner wrote: > Has that turned out to be a problem in practice? Say if you think so, > and we can propose a modification to the charter: "The votes of those > who haven't committed to a project are non-binding".
That would be a matter to be discussed on the Commons (and/or Tablibs) lists., As it stands, both are simply subprojects, and so a Commons committer is a Commons committer. Ditto for Taglibs. This was discussed at length when the Commons was founded. The consensus was that since the Commons is trying to build codebases that can safely interact with each other, then every Commons Comitter has a vested interest in every Commons codebase. Another point was that the Commons (and Taglibs) do not require a full community behind each component, and so other Committers to the subproject need the karma/authority to step up as needed. Of course, you do still need to at least be a Committer to either subproject to have a binding vote. The expectation is that the community can handle the decision making in the same way it is handled on a larger codebase, where Committers have binding votes over parts of the codebase (packages or classes) that they may never have worked on personally. In a way, the Commons and Taglibs subproject represent the other approach to Jakarta that people sometimes advocate, but so far a strong leader has not stepped up to fulfill the other half of that model. -- Ted Husted, Husted dot Com, Fairport NY USA. -- Building Java web applications with Struts. -- Tel +1 585 737-3463. -- Web http://www.husted.com/struts/ -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
