On 2/3/02 2:20 PM, "Paulo Gaspar" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> My understanding is that you defend what I was defending before > "being converted" by Costin: > - That voting rights for packages NOT in the Sandbox should be > reserved to its contributors. To be frank, if a group of people put something together in the sandbox, I think it's their right to decide what to do with it within the constraints of the licensing :) > > Did I got it wrong? > No. That's a simplification, but it's right. I assume that you no longer agree with that statement? If so, do you agree with the negation of it? (dropping the sandbox clause for clarity - assume its there if you want - it really makes no fundamental difference) 1) Voting rights for packages should not be reserved for its contributors. 2) No voting rights for packages should be reserved for its contributors. Making bigger changes : 3) Voting rights for packages should be reserved for everyone but it's contributors. 4) Voting rights for packages should be reserved for everyone. Maybe #1 and #4 mean the same thing. #2 and #3 are clearly silly but #2 is a negation of what you used to believe :) If #4, how do you define everyone? If the conventional meaning, how do you manage such a thing so that the people with the vision and hard work get to have a say in their work product w/o having to be ready for large marketing campaigns? Or another way : should the people who do the work have control? Should they have control from hostile political forces? TOTALLY HYPOTHETICAL SITUATION : Suppose there were more log4j people in 'everyone' than logkit people. Are you suggesting that the log4j people should be able to ensure that logkit never does another release? geir > > Have fun, > Paulo > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Geir Magnusson Jr. [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] >> Sent: Sunday, February 03, 2002 7:54 PM >> To: Jakarta Commons Developers List >> Subject: Re: [Logging] [VOTE] Commons Logging 1.0 Release >> >> >> On 2/3/02 1:39 PM, "Paulo Gaspar" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> >>> It is not for you to be sorry. I am a happy convert. >>> >>> Keep going. Myabe you manage to do the same for Geir and Peter. >>> =:oD >> >> Interesting comment. >> >> Could you try and summarize what you think I am saying? >> >> I am interested to know what you think I am driving towards, and to make >> sure that my message is getting across... >> >> Thanks >> >> geir >> >> >>> >>> Have fun, >>> Paulo >>> >>>> -----Original Message----- >>>> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] >>>> Sent: Sunday, February 03, 2002 11:08 AM >>>> To: Jakarta Commons Developers List; [EMAIL PROTECTED] >>>> Subject: RE: [Logging] [VOTE] Commons Logging 1.0 Release >>>> >>>> >>>> On Sun, 3 Feb 2002, Paulo Gaspar wrote: >>>> >>>>> I am already a convert. If you keep writing this kind of stuff I will >>>>> soon become an enthusiast of this line of reasoning and start >> preaching >>>>> to the masses too. >>>>> =;o) >>>> >>>> Well, I'm already sorry about that... I have a lot of other things to >>>> do, but Peter has a way to get me 'involved' in this kind of >> discussions. >>>> >>>> >>>> Costin >>>> >>>> >>> >>> -- >>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: > <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >> For additional commands, e-mail: > <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >> > > -- > Geir Magnusson Jr. [EMAIL PROTECTED] > System and Software Consulting > > > -- > 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]> > -- Geir Magnusson Jr. [EMAIL PROTECTED] System and Software Consulting "We will be judged not by the monuments we build, but by the monuments we destroy" - Ada Louise Huxtable -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
