> -----Original Message----- > From: James Duncan Davidson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > So who gets to define what is Ant? Is that you? > > Bluntly, yes. With the help of a lot of people. But where there's > disagreement... Who defined Cocoon. Stefano. Who defines Apache 2.0? Ryan. > Who defines Perl? Larry Wall. There's a pattern there. Collaborative > development still needs a lead.
Frankly this bothers me. I spent some quality time creating an interesting (my opinion) alternative proposal for Ant 2.0, and now I am reading that the long-absent grandfather of Ant 1.0 has come back to dictate his vision to the group. I am new to opensource, but I don't get it. It seems to run counter to my interpretation of the Jakarta constitution. "Any Developer may vote on any issue or action item. However, the only binding votes are those cast by a Committer. If the vote is about a change to the source code or documentation and the primary author is a Developer and not a Commiter, the primary author of what is being changed may also cast a binding vote on that issue." Perhaps an architectual direction is exempt from the same voting rules. If so, one would beg the question, "Why submit proposals?". I have read all I can get my hands on about AntEater (which is primarily the source code and a couple of introductory emails from the list), and I don't find it very progressive. Not very different from the current code. I didn't see anything that would warrant Ant 2.0...it was more like Ant 1.3. I'm sure there is more to AntEater, but I have not seen it, nor can I divine a profound vision from what I have read. If James is entitled to assume the leadership regarding what will become Ant 2.0, we would appreciate it if you reviewed the proposals submitted and write your comment about the designs. I'm even interested in whether you have looked beyond your proposal and considered the point of views of others. I hope you have, and I hope this group can come together to pick the future direction of Ant in a consensus. Can we list those people who have voting authority (committer status) on future proposal issues? 1. James Duncan Davidson (Chairman of PMC) 2. ? I think that proposal authors should also get voting rights. (Just to clear up any cloaked agenda, I submitted frANTic [http://www.visualxs.com/products/frantic/index.html]). I feel that any developer on the list should get a non-binding vote, to ensure that their opinions are heard. I think that is what the Jakarta "rules" imply as well. jim
