Dear Wiki user,

You have subscribed to a wiki page or wiki category on "Jakarta-commons Wiki" 
for change notification.

The following page has been changed by RahulAkolkar:
http://wiki.apache.org/jakarta-commons/JakartaCommonsEtiquette

The comment on the change is:
Use true wiki bullets, put [RESULT] before [VOTE] in result emails.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
  
  A VOTE is an official decision thread. Anyone can express a preference (by 
indicating +1, +0, -0 or -1 in the traditional manner) but only some votes are 
binding. All are encouraged to VOTE but traditionally (to ease the work 
required to tally the vote) ''(non-binding)'' is added by those who know their 
votes are non-binding. Only votes from Jakarta PMC members are binding.
  
- The commons-dev mailing list is a busy place. Very much a bazaar rather than 
a Cathedral. This means that VOTE threads have a habit of petering out. It a 
good idea to post a {{{[VOTE][RESULT]}}} which counts the binding VOTEs and 
tells people the result. The tally should separate binding from non-binding 
VOTES.  It is also good to place a time limit on [VOTE] threads.  Finally, VOTE 
threads often digress into interesting discussions not directly related to the 
VOTE iteslf.  In these cases, it is better to start new threads with 
appropriate subject headers for the side discussions.  This makes it easier to 
navigate the list archives and also keeps the VOTE thread on track (or leads to 
it being stopped, where appropriate).
+ The commons-dev mailing list is a busy place. Very much a bazaar rather than 
a Cathedral. This means that VOTE threads have a habit of petering out. It a 
good idea to post a {{{[RESULT][VOTE]}}} which counts the binding VOTEs and 
tells people the result. The tally should separate binding from non-binding 
VOTES.  It is also good to place a time limit on [VOTE] threads.  Finally, VOTE 
threads often digress into interesting discussions not directly related to the 
VOTE iteslf.  In these cases, it is better to start new threads with 
appropriate subject headers for the side discussions.  This makes it easier to 
navigate the list archives and also keeps the VOTE thread on track (or leads to 
it being stopped, where appropriate).
  
  A POLL is an unofficial decision thread. These are useful for gauging the 
general feeling of the broader user community. Again, preferences should be 
expressed in the usual fashion. In this case, there is no need to indicate 
non-binding (since none are!).
  
@@ -76, +76 @@

  
  Promotion is basically a beauty contest. If the component can win enough 
votes and few enough people vote against it, then the component is promoted. 
But there is one thing that is most definitely required:
  
- * Compliance with Apache Software Foundation policies. This means a full 
license at the top of every file. It means auditing the dependencies. It means 
ensuring the copyright date is correct on the licenses.
+  * Compliance with Apache Software Foundation policies. This means a full 
license at the top of every file. It means auditing the dependencies. It means 
ensuring the copyright date is correct on the licenses.
  
  There some points of etiqutte and a few criteria that (though they are not 
rules) often seem to influence the voting.
  
- * Evidence of compliance with the charter. This means having the documents 
required in the charter including a PROPOSAL. (Please look through the 
charter.) Please list all committers. Something like 'all jakarta-foo 
committers' isn't acceptable - a list is needed. 
+  * Evidence of compliance with the charter. This means having the documents 
required in the charter including a PROPOSAL. (Please look through the 
charter.) Please list all committers. Something like 'all jakarta-foo 
committers' isn't acceptable - a list is needed. 
  
- * A good PROPOSAL. A good PROPOSAL is clearly written and tightly scoped (ie. 
specific rather than general). Commons components are small, resuable 
components. The commons does not do frameworks and anything frameworkesque is 
likely to be viewed with scepticism. A PROPOSAL that duplicates an existing 
component will probably be viewed with suspicion. This is not because 
duplication is disallowed (overlapping components are specifically allowed by 
the charter) but because it indicates that the PROPOSAL fails to indicate the 
essential difference between the proposed component and the existing one. For 
example, a PROSPOSAL for a small, fast, compact xml-object mapper with minimal 
dependencies would be more likely to succeed than a PROPOSAL for 'a better 
version of commons-digester'.
+  * A good PROPOSAL. A good PROPOSAL is clearly written and tightly scoped 
(ie. specific rather than general). Commons components are small, resuable 
components. The commons does not do frameworks and anything frameworkesque is 
likely to be viewed with scepticism. A PROPOSAL that duplicates an existing 
component will probably be viewed with suspicion. This is not because 
duplication is disallowed (overlapping components are specifically allowed by 
the charter) but because it indicates that the PROPOSAL fails to indicate the 
essential difference between the proposed component and the existing one. For 
example, a PROSPOSAL for a small, fast, compact xml-object mapper with minimal 
dependencies would be more likely to succeed than a PROPOSAL for 'a better 
version of commons-digester'.
  
- * The health of the development community. Fellow committers need to be 
persuaded that users will be supported and the code pushed forward by the 
listed committers. This is a major issue since there's only a limited amount of 
energy amongst the commons committers and no one wants to have to support a 
component whose committers have gone AWOL.
+  * The health of the development community. Fellow committers need to be 
persuaded that users will be supported and the code pushed forward by the 
listed committers. This is a major issue since there's only a limited amount of 
energy amongst the commons committers and no one wants to have to support a 
component whose committers have gone AWOL.
  
- * The people proposing the component. It's a sad fact of life but a PROPOSAL 
that comes from well known and respected Apache committers is more likely to be 
viewed positively than a PROPOSAL by people not well known to the Commons Team. 
Please don't get offended - you'll just need to work that little bit harder.
+  * The people proposing the component. It's a sad fact of life but a PROPOSAL 
that comes from well known and respected Apache committers is more likely to be 
viewed positively than a PROPOSAL by people not well known to the Commons Team. 
Please don't get offended - you'll just need to work that little bit harder.
  
  = Ettiquette - Proposing A Promotion VOTE =
  
- * Discuss and try to formulate a consensus first. Promotion votes can (and 
do) get messy unless this happens. Create a discussion thread on the list and 
try to find out any reasons people might have for voting against. You might 
need to alter your charter, add missing files or resolve dependency issues. 
It's easy for everyone if all main issues are sorted before you propose the 
proper VOTE. If revisions to the proposal are required, the VOTEing can get 
very messy.
+  * Discuss and try to formulate a consensus first. Promotion votes can (and 
do) get messy unless this happens. Create a discussion thread on the list and 
try to find out any reasons people might have for voting against. You might 
need to alter your charter, add missing files or resolve dependency issues. 
It's easy for everyone if all main issues are sorted before you propose the 
proper VOTE. If revisions to the proposal are required, the VOTEing can get 
very messy.
  
- * Post a promotion email whose subject and body make it clear that this is a 
formal promotion VOTE. The subject should be prefixed by {{{[VOTE]}}} and 
should be something like {{{[VOTE] Promote commons-foo}}}. The body should be 
clear and fairly formal. 
+  * Post a promotion email whose subject and body make it clear that this is a 
formal promotion VOTE. The subject should be prefixed by {{{[VOTE]}}} and 
should be something like {{{[VOTE] Promote commons-foo}}}. The body should be 
clear and fairly formal. 
  
- * Proposal - always include a copy of the PROPOSAL that's being VOTE'd on in 
the VOTE email. This is important since it is clear to everyone what they are 
VOTEing on. It also prevents being put in the embarasing position of the 
PROPOSAL being VOTE'd on being modifed in CVS half way through a VOTE thread. 
+  * Proposal - always include a copy of the PROPOSAL that's being VOTE'd on in 
the VOTE email. This is important since it is clear to everyone what they are 
VOTEing on. It also prevents being put in the embarasing position of the 
PROPOSAL being VOTE'd on being modifed in CVS half way through a VOTE thread. 
  
- * Please give the proposal enough time to give everything the chance to VOTE. 
I leave promotion VOTEs several days - maybe up to a week. When VOTEs have 
stopped coming in then please the proposer should post a {{{[VOTE][RESULT]}}} 
giving counts. Only the VOTEs of commons committers are binding so please make 
sure that these are tallied separately. The reason why a result email is good 
is that VOTE thread tend to peter out and so without a final email, it's hard 
to look back through the archives and find out what's happened. Another reason 
is that it's a good way to let everyone know what the result was. If there are 
any disagreements about the result, they can be resolved then. 
+  * Please give the proposal enough time to give everything the chance to 
VOTE. I leave promotion VOTEs several days - maybe up to a week. When VOTEs 
have stopped coming in then please the proposer should post a 
{{{[RESULT][VOTE]}}} giving counts. Only the VOTEs of commons committers are 
binding so please make sure that these are tallied separately. The reason why a 
result email is good is that VOTE thread tend to peter out and so without a 
final email, it's hard to look back through the archives and find out what's 
happened. Another reason is that it's a good way to let everyone know what the 
result was. If there are any disagreements about the result, they can be 
resolved then. 
  

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Reply via email to