This is the kind of stupid, assinine comment that is really what trolling is all about. There are clearly more than I found by doing a general search for Redding. Try doing one for Frank and see what happens, Martin. I really could vomit when I hear that feminine English "pity".
On 4/25/06, Martin Cooper <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On 4/25/06, Dakota Jack <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > Here is a case in point: I count four (4) posts to the dev list in Greg > > Reddin's history. > > > Pity you can't count. > > http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?w=2&r=1&s=greg.reddin&q=a > > -- > Martin Cooper > > > He is a committer. On the user list there is also > > virtually nothing. What stands out is that he was interested in a > couple > > of > > posts in Shale. What is the possible reason he is a committer and Frank > > is > > not? Is this the Way Different Struts-Apache Way. This is crazy! Do > > people actually believe Ted and Craig? > > > > On 4/25/06, Greg Reddin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > > > > > On Apr 25, 2006, at 9:55 AM, Frank W. Zammetti wrote: > > > > > > > That depends entirely on your meaning of the word "closed". You > > > > make the > > > > argument that the number of new committers means it isn't closed, > > > > and I > > > > agree with you to a degree. But that's not the only meaning of > > > > "closed"... the invitations to those people came *soley* from the > PMC > > > > AFAIK... the community had no say in it. That's the thing my > proposal > > > > seeks to address, that the initiation of someone being invited > doesn't > > > > necessarily have to come from those already there (although they > would > > > > still have the final say-so). > > > > > > I have some serious concerns about this. Let me just use myself as > > > an example. I've been a committer for about 6 months or so. I have > > > absolutely no idea what sort of discussion took place before I > > > received that invitation. If there was someone among the PMC who was > > > vehemently opposed to my nomination I'm glad they had a confidential > > > forum in which to discuss their concerns. Now that I am a committer > > > I can have an unbiased conversation with anybody else in the group > > > without any preconceived notion of what that individual's opinion of > > > me might be. Truly, I don't have confidence that either user@ or > > > dev@ is a place where concerns can be expressed openly without fear > > > of unprofessional response. It's just too easy for this kind of > > > discussion to turn into personal attacks in a forum such as user@ or > > > even [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > > > When Struts was a Jakarta subproject I remember committer votes > > > taking place on [EMAIL PROTECTED] I always felt just a little uneasy > > > about it. > > > 99 times out of 100 it was a unanimous +1 with no discussion. But I > > > seem to recall at least one case when concerns were expressed (sorry, > > > I don't remember the specifics, please correct me if I'm wrong). I > > > feel really bad that this person's personal merit would have to be > > > discussed in a public forum. I understand some others' concerns > > > about the community appearing to be closed, but I think there should > > > be a barrier to entry. Maybe it's too high, but it seems to me that > > > it should exist. After all it's basically a lifetime appointment and > > > revocations are very rare if one has ever happened at all. > > > > > > Greg > > > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > "You can lead a horse to water but you cannot make it float on its > back." > > ~Dakota Jack~ > > > > > > -- "You can lead a horse to water but you cannot make it float on its back." ~Dakota Jack~
