If there is disagreement among developers about what the APR project(s) should do, then it has to be worked out like any other disagreement. But using the charter as a *justification* for one's position about APR's scope is circular, or at least semi-circular :-).
It's only appropriate to treat charters as restrictive when resources are finite. For example, non-profit organizations have to respect their charters in a specific legal way, because people who donated money might be upset to see it used for something other than what they donated it for. But APR is a different kind of situation. Everyone who has put time into APR has reaped the results of their work already -- all those past revisions, releases, and branches are available to anyone who now wants to steer the project (or a copy of the project) according to their own vision. Likewise, no one can claim to have lost anything if a majority of developers choose to develop *this* copy of APR along lines unforseen a year ago. Thus, Ryan, I don't see any justification for viewing the charter as anything but a description, perhaps now out-of-date, of what APR intends to be. We must decide *today* where APR is going, based on our experiences so far, and where there is disagreement, it has to be resolved through discussion, as with any other disagreement. Invoking the charter as an authority is simply missing the point. -Karl
