Headline: Policy kills and up-and-coming star
Problems I see in no particular order;
1. Two subproject votes called simultaneously totaling 3 concurrent open
votes (fcgid, ftp, ServerTokens OFF), and a one "let's get this ready to
vote" (httpd 2.3.3). That's a lot to chew on, especially with all the
other important concerns floating about at this time (mod_proxy, CVE's
against mod_proxy_ftp, bug smashing in current branch).
2. Lack of knowledge of existence at user base level!
3. Policy that may be simply too restrictive on something at this stage
of development.
4. FTP servers are a dime a dozen.
Yes, I think calling this vote in the very next email written after the
call to vote for mod_fcgid is a problem, especially when it is called
along side a module that had been in use by a large number of users
prior to ASF taking it over. mod_fcgid also had the benefit of a voting
member whom backed it and was *very* active in getting it into the
system and getting other members to look at it. Obviously this stole the
show.
The ultimate users of this module while may be PMC members is per capita
going to be the people whom do not know they have a voice (albeit not
binding) in the matter. Due to it's stealthy nature (only being
discussed at the dev@ level AFAIK) there is probably a whole range of
users that do not even know of it's existence. It also takes some guts
to come on this list and make your opinion known. I am *not* saying that
user input is ignore, I know full well it is not ignored as I can point
to three things in the past month that prove as much.
Policy is policy, I understand it and in most cases I think it is a very
sound policy, however as Gunter points out, maybe things at a certain
stage need to be able to go outside of policy, or have a place that
whereby anything under a certain category has an exception to this
stringent policy due to it's level of maturity (not the right word but
the right one alludes me at the moment). Maybe this should be a topic of
discussion and vote. Then again, maybe I should shut up.
Gut feeling tells me that if binaries were available, and were announced
prominently in the user haunts, there would be quite a bit of noise on
this module pro and con. Some folks however will understandably not
touch anything labeled beta, worse yet, some people (like me) are lazy.
I currently have this module sitting on two hard drives compiled (vc6 &
vc9) but have not found an opportune time to learn how to configure and
use it as I have other priorities that unfortunately at this point and
time supersede it. I personally think it is a great idea regardless and
plan to make said time for it in the near future.
Just my 2 cents
Regards,
Gregg
William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
Guenter Knauf wrote:
Also, since its beta state we should probably also take test results of
non-commiters into account, f.e. Mario and Jorge?
We *always* (that is all of us, PMC members) consider everyone's votes and
commentary on all releases.
Although they are not binding, they are very important too :)
But from a foundation process, policy and legal perspective, the 3 +1's
rule serves an important purpose, and requires the votes of individuals
who the ASF board has installed as PMC members (even though the PMC had
chosen them in the first place).
