In my personal opinion they are just redundant :-) The rule that matter is that the community control the code and the name - a majority vote in the community can decide ultimately what happens.
This is a particular case ( again IMO ) of the "releases are majority votes and can't be vetoed". A side effect of the 'revolution' rules is that a veto can be overriden - nobody can veto a revolution ( or a release ), and if you change the entire code base or a part of it you obviously can make changes that were vetoed. There are few important consequences: 1. No person ( or group ) can control a codebase by using veto. It is quite easy to find technical reasons against anything. 2. It removes some personal conflicts. A veto or someone blocking an idea can be painful. It's a big difference between a majority voting against a particular idea and one person vetoing it. 3. To take tomcat as an example - it allows diverging groups or opinions to find the common ground. And that's the really great part IMO. 4. Some good ideas that may otherwise be rejected can eventually live. Costin On Fri, 2002-11-08 at 13:50, Sam Ruby wrote: > Rodent of Unusual Size wrote: > > my curiousity has been set off again. there have been numerous > > mentions of the revolution concept as used in jakarta, and its > > widespread acceptance as policy. however, i don't see it > > mentioned in the jakarta guidelines; in fact, only in ted's > > proposal for new guidelines. > > > > is jakarta's semi-formal acceptance of it as an operating principle > > actually recorded anywhere, or is it actually just an 'everybody > > knows that' informal general acceptance? > > "general acceptance" is probably too strong a word. There are some, > including apparently the original author, who now have doubts. But > there can be no doubt that this document has strongly influenced the > evolution of a number of Jakarta projects. > > For further reading, I'd recommend taking a look at topics 3 and 4 in > http://jakarta.apache.org/site/pmc/01-01-17-meeting-minutes.html > > In my mind, the concepts of vetoes, revolutions, and releases being a > majority decision are linked. Note: when Roy made the statement about > releases, it sure sounded to me like he was stating it as if it were ASF > policy. In any case, I would recommend that it be so. > > Taken together, provisions are made for individuals to get attention to > be focused on issues that they feel are important, individuals or even > small groups can flesh out concepts that may initially be controversial, > and a safety valve is provided so that forward progress can still be made. > > - Sam Ruby > > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >
