At 08:40 19/12/00 -0800, Jon Stevens wrote: >on 12/19/2000 7:44 PM, "Jason Hunter" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> This situation with internal forks is hard because who gets to have the >> fork with the original name? I think in the situation where such a >> decision needs to be made it should be decided by the overseeing PMC. > >This is the final real question in your excellent analysis. Therefore it is >most interesting to me.
yep. >Given that James is not only the President of the PMC, but there are other >people on it like myself who no one likes at this point so whatever decision >I make, everyone will hate me for it. :-) There are also people on the PMC >whom I think might not really care about the future of Ant as much as the >people on this list do. agreed. >As a result, I'm not certain that the PMC is the right choice for doing the >vote. It would be similar to trying to hold a meeting to decide futures in >the states and not inviting all the European people (note that wasn't my >intention for the meeting at all...I just need to clarify that for all you >people who still don't get it). ;) >It would also be giving a group that may not have the technical best >knowledge of the proposals (or the time to go back and read all the archives >of the list) the decision over what the future should be. Not good IMHO. True but I hate to say it ... but technical elegence is not always the top priority I think. The best thing about Apache is the people and not the code. Aim for technical elegence if at all possible but try not to piss off to many people ;) >Anyway, my personal opinion, which no one probably wants to hear at this >point, is that I think that things have progressed far enough down this path >of hell that it will have to be up to the entire list to focus and come up >with an agreeable solution that everyone likes. This is actually what I >wanted to do with the in person meeting: assuming enough of the core people >could have had made it. agreed ;) >I will say that some people, especially those who have contributed >proposals, should be open enough to not having their entire proposals >accepted. I would assume that the entire proposals are not horrible, but >instead have good ideas mixed in with some not so good ideas. Thus, I would >want to see the people with the proposals try to push their good ideas into >one unified proposal that everyone likes. I guess I am that some ;) >So, maybe one way to start this off would be to get everyone who has done a >proposal to come up with a list of their favorite ideas and then gather >those together into a master "wish list". This could also serve as a nice >functional specification document (FSD). Then, once that is done, people can >work together on an implementation of the FSD because they have an agreement >on what the FS should be. It would need to be agreed in advance that this >FSD and implementation would then become Ant 2.0. good idea. WIll have to wait till post new-year when more contributors are back thou. Cheers, Pete *-----------------------------------------------------* | "Faced with the choice between changing one's mind, | | and proving that there is no need to do so - almost | | everyone gets busy on the proof." | | - John Kenneth Galbraith | *-----------------------------------------------------*
