Re: @apache web pages
Henri Yandell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > On Tue, 12 Nov 2002, Andrew C. Oliver wrote: > > > > > > > > > >Yes. and no. Las Vegas is way too far for my travel budget > > >this year :( > > >I'll have to wait for the next Europe ApacheCon. > > > > > > > > I hope thats not spaced too close together... > > Next May in London please :) Actually no, early June. I'll be at a wedding > in May. > > *still getting used to the complete lack of holiday in the US* Instate a mandatory 6 weeks of vacation a year! :-) -- Daniel Rall
Re: Rules for Revolutionaries
Jeff Turner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > On Tue, Nov 12, 2002 at 04:05:24AM +0100, Stefano Mazzocchi wrote: > ... > Personally, I find Tomcat 4's startup time is too slow for Forrest/Cocoon > development, so if it wasn't for 3.3.x, I'd be using Resin or Jetty. > > > The rules for revolutionaries had a bug since they didn't specify > > what was going to happen to the project that was overruled by the > > revolution. > > I have a hard time believing that _users_ would be better off if 3.3 > development had been forcefully stopped once Catalina was accepted. Do you really think that Tomcat 4's startup time would've remained significantly worse than 3.3.x if those working on 3.3.x had migrated to working on 4? -- Daniel Rall
RE: Story behind dev@httpd.apache.org and new-httpd@yahoogroups.c om
Hola Todos, Justin: Thanks all for the quick response, but . just received about 10 or so messages from dev@httpd.apache.org in a month, the folder where i filter them, checked archives, and yes they are a bunch, glups, i did it another time !!!.. Was not having a reply-to mangling and the way people uses the lists there, as result my usual filter rules mangled them, distributing them among various folders in my mailbox, sorry for wasting everyones time.. Saludos, Ignacio J. Ortega
Re: Story behind dev@httpd.apache.org and new-httpd@yahoogroups.com
--On Friday, November 15, 2002 5:07 PM +0100 "Ignacio J. Ortega" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Hola a todos: I'm curious bout why the [EMAIL PROTECTED] list has such a poor activity, i know the quick response is "it's simply not used" but why?, and there is a list outside asf new-httpd that is so active, and seems for me that they are on the same topics at least very for the casual lurker, like me.. Huh? dev@httpd.apache.org is the main list for HTTP Server development, and it's quite active. new-httpd@apache.org was the old name for that development mailing list. (Don't remember when we switched though.) There are no ASF external mailing lists that any of us use for ASF development. Perhaps you are confusing Yahoo's 'archive' of the mailing list for the real mailing list. -- justin
Re: Story behind dev@httpd.apache.org and new-httpd@yahoogroups.com
On Friday, November 15, 2002, at 09:07 AM, Ignacio J. Ortega wrote: Hola a todos: I'm curious bout why the [EMAIL PROTECTED] list has such a poor activity, i know the quick response is "it's simply not used" but why?, and there is a list outside asf new-httpd that is so active, and seems for me that they are on the same topics at least very for the casual lurker, like me.. Thanks.. Sorry if this a sensitive question.. They look to me like the same list. Chuck
Re: Story behind dev@httpd.apache.org and new-httpd@yahoogroups.com
"Ignacio J. Ortega" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > I'm curious bout why the [EMAIL PROTECTED] list has such a poor activity, i > know > the quick response is "it's simply not used" but why?, and there is a > list outside asf new-httpd that is so active, and seems for me that they > are on the same topics at least very for the casual lurker, like me.. [EMAIL PROTECTED] appears to be a mirror of [EMAIL PROTECTED] I don't understand how there would be a different level of activity. [EMAIL PROTECTED] seems plenty busy to me :) -- Jeff Trawick | [EMAIL PROTECTED] Born in Roswell... married an alien...
Story behind dev@httpd.apache.org and new-httpd@yahoogroups.com
Hola a todos: I'm curious bout why the [EMAIL PROTECTED] list has such a poor activity, i know the quick response is "it's simply not used" but why?, and there is a list outside asf new-httpd that is so active, and seems for me that they are on the same topics at least very for the casual lurker, like me.. Thanks.. Sorry if this a sensitive question.. Saludos, Ignacio J. Ortega
Re: @apache web pages
Here is your missing link. Apache isn't about code bases or branding, its about software communities.. These are communities of humans. Such pages help these humans understand each other and build a stronger software development community. And it puts a face on apache. Hope that helps... there is an insider/outsider boundry as it is. Making it unspoken is worse. -Andy Ben Hyde wrote: It would be fun to have an Apache community aggregate of web logs, but I have trouble seeing how it serves the foundation's mission. Sorry to be a wet blanket... I'm concerned that if we create people.apache.org we create another inside/outsider boundary. I've got a handful of other concerns about this, but that's my primary one. Some other ones... I'd rather not co-mingles the Apache brand with the personal web face of individuals in various subparts of the community. Our mission. Creating great software. Puzzling out how to do that productively in cooperative volunteer teams. Releasing that widely under a license that is both open. Crafting an effective open license. One that doesn't entrap folks. I have to do a lot of A supports B supports C supports D before I get to the conclusion that D, building out a mess of committer web pages, supports A, the mission of the foundation. I'm concerned that a few highly vocal members might generate the impression that the foundation is taking positions that it's not. Consider Sam's web log with where he's been poking at RSS - that's not a ASF position. Consider my web log with it's rants on the wealth distribution - that's not an ASF position. The easiest way to avoid a star stage is not to build the stage. - ben - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: @apache web pages
It would be fun to have an Apache community aggregate of web logs, but I have trouble seeing how it serves the foundation's mission. Sorry to be a wet blanket... I'm concerned that if we create people.apache.org we create another inside/outsider boundary. I've got a handful of other concerns about this, but that's my primary one. Some other ones... I'd rather not co-mingles the Apache brand with the personal web face of individuals in various subparts of the community. Our mission. Creating great software. Puzzling out how to do that productively in cooperative volunteer teams. Releasing that widely under a license that is both open. Crafting an effective open license. One that doesn't entrap folks. I have to do a lot of A supports B supports C supports D before I get to the conclusion that D, building out a mess of committer web pages, supports A, the mission of the foundation. I'm concerned that a few highly vocal members might generate the impression that the foundation is taking positions that it's not. Consider Sam's web log with where he's been poking at RSS - that's not a ASF position. Consider my web log with it's rants on the wealth distribution - that's not an ASF position. The easiest way to avoid a star stage is not to build the stage. - ben
Re: Rules for Revolutionaries
On Wednesday, November 13, 2002, at 04:20 AM, Rodent of Unusual Size wrote: Costin Manolache wrote: What you would have liked is your problem. As I repeated quite a few times and you don't seem to hear is that the decision about a release is a majority vote and can't be vetoed - even if it pisses off some people. not strictly true, although mostly. a product release may be effectively vetoed by the asf officer with oversight of the project, if it appears in that person's judgement that releasing it would be the Wrong Thing for the foundation. in that case, it doesn't matter what the majority think, since the product is an *asf* product and not just theirs, although they certainly have the privilege of and responsibility to try to convince the officer (pmc chair) of the Rightness of the view to release. Umm, you are both wrong. Technical decisions are made by the PMC, according to the PMC bylaws (usually the developer guidelines). Those bylaws do not allow the chair to make decisions by fiat, nor is it safe (legally) for them to do so. The PMC chair is ultimately responsible for oversight, which means being aware of and making sure that the decisions are being made according to our policies, which are mercifully short aside from the redirect to 501(c)(3) obligations. The PMC chairs are further responsible for reporting anything questionable (or simply interesting) to the board. The board of directors can make decisions about anything, though we have an explicit agreement with members that technical decisions are delegated to the PMCs (read, acknowledged voting committers, because that's what I meant it to say), which means we make "technical decisions" by closing whole projects until the issue is fixed. The Chairman of the Board is responsible for oversight of the board's decision-making process, which includes making sure that the board acts when it must, such as when a project is doing something without legal right to do so. Please note that the board members have taken on legal responsibility for acting on behalf of the ASF when an issue like that occurs, and the only ways to get out of that bind is to force a correction or resign. Regarding vetoes, in the httpd guidelines (which should still be the same as those for Jakarta), no software can be released without resolving the veto, which happens when the vetoed change is reversed, or the technical reason is no longer applicable (perhaps due to a fork agreed to by the vetoer), or the vetoer simply changes his/her mind and removes the veto, or the person has their voting privileges revoked. There is no way for the majority to "vote around" a veto aside from revoking the vetoer's right to vote at all, which is pretty much an explicit way of telling them to go fork off. None of this came up with Tomcat once it was acknowledged that 3.x would be implementing a different servlet spec from 4.x, at which point all of the technical reasons for vetoing further 3.x work disappeared. It then simply became an issue of whether or not enough people would work on it to pass the minimal quorum requirement (3 +1s). Under no circumstance did they ever "vote around" a veto. Roy
