Re: Voting and comments

[Andrew McIntyre]

On Oct 21, 2005, at 9:18 PM, Daniel John Debrunner wrote: David W. Van Couvering wrote: Does anyone have any ideas how a vote submitter can get the feedback they need *prior* to calling for a vote?  I really would prefer a vote to be a "stamp of approval" on a discussion that has already been worked through. I think you have to change your expectations and approach to fit the model of open source and the behaviour of the community. I'm personally going back a lot more to the basic "scratch your own itch" as the starting point and fundamental approach. <snip lots of good examples> To go back to the shared code, maybe an detailed proposal is the wrong approach, a possible alternative is: 1) Set up a vote for the top-level principles, e.g. 2) Contribute a patch/set of code that is in line with the principle, has the detailed explanation, framework and intial shared code, and provides value to Derby. Should be accepted because it adds value. +1! To paraphrase a recent movie catch phrase: "Show me the code!" It's a lot easier to talk about something concrete than something abstract and vague. And, as long as anyone contributes something real that has definite value to the project, who is going to turn it down? You'd have to be crazy! :-) I admit this is a very different approach than the usual closed source way of spec-it-out and then implement the spec approach. It's more like implement-your-proposal and let the community comment. This is why I voted -0 to the recent Junit vote. It's great that members of the community are interested in developing Junit tests for Derby. But it doesn't mean much to say that we require Junit for testing when there are no Junit tests for other contributors to run, validate, and enhance. Speaking of which: Rick - I promise I'll get around to reviewing your contribution of new Junit compatibility tests w/r/t DERBY-516 as soon as I can (early next week?). I guess it's also important to understand that everyone has a limited amount of time and that individuals get things done according to how strong their itch for that particular subject happens to be. andrew