On 2/1/02 3:43 PM, "Scott Sanders" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> How do you enforce this? How do you handle this in the Avalon world? I > consider (only just recently, BTW), that a committer in Commons is a > committer to the entire commons codebase, including the sandbox. And that's the problem that I think peter is pointing out - that people can have binding votes on projects that they have nothing to do with... One of the motivations for commons was a place for small*, discrete components to be able to be packaged and presented for reuse by both Jakarta projects and developers at large. So to me, it was to be a container for 'mini-projects', each behaving like any of the other top level projects in jakarta: Each had a user community, each had documentation (hopefully like the other components :), and each had committers that were committers because they showed interest, dedication and provided value. Now, that the user communities overlapped, and that the developers overlapped didn't matter - in fact, that made the whole model stronger because it coupled what appeared to be islands together into a more cohesive group. Further, the sandbox was added to offer a completely open place for anyone to play, test, experiment and most importantly, collaborate. However, that's not how it finally turned out. I too believed then and still believe now that we would be better served with the conventional Apache/Jakarta committer model in Commons, where each component is a well defined group of interested people, a part of the larger community as well, of course. I don't think there is *any* downside to that model, as people who are committed and interested and want a role in a component will get involved in what I understand the traditional Apache/Jakarta way is... geir (*) I have no idea what 'small' really means :) > > Let a person's code speak. > > Scott > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Peter Donald [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] >> Sent: Thursday, January 31, 2002 12:05 PM >> To: Jakarta Commons Developers List >> Subject: Re: [Logging] [VOTE] Commons Logging 1.0 Release >> >> >> On Fri, 1 Feb 2002 05:06, Scott Sanders wrote: >>> What needs to be changed Peter? >> >> People who dont contribute to a component dont get voting >> rights over a >> component. >> >>> Explicitly state it in a >>> proposal/vote/patch and let's do it. >> >> I have proposed it several times before. If you go back to >> the original vote >> for commons you will see that I only started waving the >> Avalon duplication >> flag after I was ignored on this issue for the second time. I >> had hoped Jon >> would have picked up on it and we could have forced the >> proposal to include >> this requirement but it didn't happen this way. >> >> -- >> Cheers, >> >> Pete >> >> --------------------------------------------------------------- >> The difference between genius, and stupidity? Genius has limits >> --------------------------------------------------------------- >> >> >> -- >> To unsubscribe, e-mail: >> <mailto:commons-dev-> [EMAIL PROTECTED]> >> For >> additional commands, >> e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >> >> > > -- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > -- Geir Magnusson Jr. [EMAIL PROTECTED] System and Software Consulting Be a giant. Take giant steps. Do giant things... -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
