Hi Benson, On 4/27/2012 at 8:36 PM, Benson Margulies wrote: > On Fri, Apr 27, 2012 at 2:27 PM, Steven A Rowe <[email protected]> wrote: >> On 4/27/2012 at 9:10 AM, Benson Margulies wrote: >>> 1: Should the Lucene PMC publish maven artifacts at all? >>> >>> - There seems to remain a consensus of the community: "Yes". >> >> Not really: consensus means unanimous agreement. > > No, consensus means no one chooses to block consensus. And since > Maven is in place, it would take a decision by consensus to remove > it.
According to <http://www.apache.org/foundation/voting.html>, procedural votes require majority approval, not concensus. But maybe you're referring to the code change vote procedure, which allows a single PMC member to veto code changes? IMHO, Maven support in Lucene/Solr doesn't qualify as code. (Simple test: does Maven support - the POMs - ship with the source releases? The answer is no.) > Much email has been sent on the premise that Maven specially > and uniquely raises certain IP and policy issues. It doesn't. > It does offer some constraints and opportunities for coping > with these issues. AFAICT, Lucene/Solr completely complies with ASF policies, and will continue to do so - this is a requirement for the continued existence of the project under ASF governance. By contrast, Maven's "offered constraints", including its separate publishing platform, present challenges that need to be addressed separately, at a cost that the project is not required to bear. The nature of those challenges (IP/policy/whatever) is IMHO immaterial. > However, if I'm not being helpful, and it seems that I'm not, I'll return to > lurking. I value your opinions even though I may not always share them. And I certainly welcome your assistance in meeting the challenges of keeping Maven in-house here. Steve
