> We should trust the judgment of our community, let each committer > decide for themselves, and then Jakarta be whatever Jakarta wants to be.
+1 I totally agree, and I would hope that no one seriously holds any other view. Concern about oversight has been flagged as an issue for us to address and we are duty bound to explore the ways in which we can achieve this. I would hope that by debating the issue we are bringing it to the wider attention of our community, and disseminating fact and opinion (perhaps, indeed, for a third or fourth time) which will help to inform the actions of every commiter and PMC member and bring us closer to our goal without any radical or authoritarian steps being required. Frankly I would regard either step as being at best a partial failure, and at worst potentially more damaging to the community than any failure to _quickly_ resolve the situation. I still believe that by continuing to have an open debate we are making progress, and I hope that others can see how frank and honest examination of the various opinions and potential directions is in itself vital to bind and re-unify the project and engage the whole community in shaping our mutual future. At the end of the day (Oh I hate it when I say that!) the most important asset we have is each other, and we have nothing to keep us here apart from the attraction of a healthy community, it is not bylaws or oversight or promotion that should be the focus of our efforts to restore some balance, rather it should be the community, and through the actions of a united community we will achieve the technical requirements of procedure and oversight in much the same way that a healty community will produce high quality software with very little management effort required. d. --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
