On Fri, 07 Jan 2005 15:25:17 +0100, Manfred Geiler wrote: >�+1 > >�What about this decision itself, do we need a meta decision >�process? ;-) Oh, I love recursive self-references :-) > >�Manfred
Just as an aside, the preference is for Apache projects to discuss their way into a decision, rather than appeal to the process. Ideally, people should chat about things on the list, until someone does something about it. If no one comments on the commit, then the decision is made. We call this "lazy consensus". The key to this, of course, is that all the commits flow through the DEV list. The commits are part of the development discussion too. The only part that matters, really :) The Jakarta project tends to be a bit vote-happy. Many Apaches consider all this voting slightly scandalous. Outside of a release, voting is seen as a sign that discussions have broken down. Following the formal process is considered a last resort -- what you do when discussions don't seem to be working, and the team is not of one mind. A release is a little different. Since there are different grades of release, a release will always require a vote. But these are usually majority votes, and a -1 is not a showstopper. (Though, the goal is always for the members to be unanimous, or to find a way for them to become unanimous.) The bottom line is that a project is not a government, it's a team, and a team should be of one mind. -Ted.
