> Huh. That wasn't my read. Peter's "-1" seemed to be a reaction to being > told that since he wasn't in the 'STATUS file', what he said didn't much > matter as to the release.
My read is that Peter wanted to make a point on how non committers should not be allowed to vote on a commons project. He was talking about that all the time Have fun, Paulo Gaspar > -----Original Message----- > From: Geir Magnusson Jr. [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Saturday, February 02, 2002 3:11 PM > To: Jakarta Commons Developers List > Subject: Re: [Logging] [VOTE] Commons Logging 1.0 Release > > > On 2/2/02 6:50 AM, "Ted Husted" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > The vote was on a release, and the vote passed. > > > > An issue regarding attribution was resolved. The committers are still > > honing some fine points, but the package is on it's way. > > > > Apparently, Peter feels that "I have been stymied by "committers" who > > vetoed things but had never done > > anywork and never intended doing any work on something. It aint > > something I am not willing to invite again." > > Huh. That wasn't my read. Peter's "-1" seemed to be a reaction to being > told that since he wasn't in the 'STATUS file', what he said didn't much > matter as to the release. > > This statement about the STATUS file was indeed in error. > However, I think > his point was well made - in a meritocracy, he shouldn't have had the > ability to do what he did. > > > > > and so has problems with our politics. > > > > Personally, I would never permit any veto not based on the technical > > merits stand. > > And how would you go about that? You have no choice, do you? > > Is there anything that states that voting is based on technical merits? I > don't think so. For example, you might not want to release something > because you think the documentation isn't ready, or the timing is bad, or > some such... > > > The Committers are a jury, but there is an avenue of > > appeal. Happily, that avenue is rarely pursued. > > > > Since the purpose of ASF and Jakarta is to permit codebases to survive > > their developers, it is not reasonable to say that you can only vote on > > code that you developed. Eventually, we will all become custodians of > > code that we did not create, but must support and maintain. > > Isn't it to survive their initial developers, to provide a > mechanism through > which a merit-based community can grow? > > > I think that Peter demonstrated some serious issues, and we should address > them. I suppose that others don't think there is a problem - somone > suggested that all is fine because of how well commons is doing. I think > success is a lagging indicator. > > geir > > -- > Geir Magnusson Jr. [EMAIL PROTECTED] > System and Software Consulting > You're going to end up getting pissed at your software > anyway, so you might as well not pay for it. Try Open Source. > > > > -- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: > <mailto:[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]>
