On Sat, 2 Feb 2002 07:49, Scott Sanders wrote:
> <snip/>
>
> > > 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.
>
> I agreed with you at the time, but it didn't happen. Now we have the
> Commons and we have to live together here in Jakarta land. But the
> general concensus that I have seen since the dual introduction of Oro
> and Regexp is that duplication is OK. I don't necessarily agree with
> that, but I can see some benefits of it, so I go with the flow.
>
> Your concern now, besides the duplication,
my concern was never duplication ;) Other people are usually concerned about
duplication and I was only trying to use that to get people to look at the
management side. Usually when Jon wiffs that he goes burko and I was trying
to incite him ;)
> is that someone with no
> vested interest can affect the code in some way, is this correct?
Affecting the code is fine - however having voting rights over the code is
not fine IMHO. Just FYI I was an advocate of having an open CVS where once
you are a committer to one jakarta project you are a committer to them all.
However commit rights nad voting rights are not equivelent.
> I
> would submit to you that is that person is a Commons committer, they are
> here because they *do* have a vested interest, not only in the component
> they work on primarily, but also any component here.
I
would submit to you that is that person is a Jakarta committer, they are
here because they *do* have a vested interest, not only in the component
they work on primarily, but also any project here.
I
would submit to you that is that person is a Apache committer, they are
here because they *do* have a vested interest, not only in the component
they work on primarily, but also any top level project here.
I think all those statements have an equal chance of being true ;)
> So, again, what is your proposed solution to the problem?
Meritocracy? People earn the right to vote on a component by showing merit.
--
Cheers,
Pete
Doubt is not a pleasant condition, but certainty is absurd.
-- Voltaire
--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
