Martin Cooper wrote:
However, a +1 vote is *not* an
assertion that the voter, specifically, intends to provide such support.
Please try re-reading what I wrote. Unless, that is, you are saying that I
should be *prohibited* from voting +1 on any release unless I am
*personally* committed to fixing the bugs, even if there are a dozen other
committers out there who I know for a fact are going to be doing that
whether or not I do so myself.
No, "prohibited" would probably be too strong (PROBABLY)... And yes,
I'd agree that if you know there are dozens of committers ready to
provide support, that's a bit of a different story too. But can you
really say such a discussion usually takes place before a vote? Is the
question: "are there at least a few people ready to support this?"
actually asked before a vote is called? That would be atypical in my
experience, based on the project I've been involved in.
Assuming that's the case then, it's the *implication* of what a +1 means
that's important, which I believe was Ted's point.
I left the part above where you said "...a +1 vote is *not* an assertion
that the voter, specifically, intends to provide such support". I would
contend just the opposite is in fact the case, but I'll now qualify it
slightly in light of your reply: in the absence of a discussion before a
vote where it is determined who will provide support other than the
person casting a +1, then that +1 does in fact *imply* that person
*specifically* intends to provide support. Stated another way: a person
voting +1 cannot *assume* there will be support provided by others, that
would potentially be a big disservice to the community at large when
they discover no one is in fact willing to support the release.
The fact that projects at Apache do not typically push out release which
are not then supported pretty much supports this: I think most Apache
members voting +1 are not only saying "I believe the code is ready for
public consumption" but are also by implication saying "...and I'm ready
to back up that belief with support". I dare say that's the underlying
belief with most open-source projects, at least the good ones. In fact,
I'd love to hear from anyone reading this who DOESN'T feel that way and why.
I am *not* saying that we should throw the bits out there and leave them to
rot. I *am* saying that, as a PMC member, I have a right to vote +1 for a
release even if I, personally, am not in a position to work on the code
right now. Now, I *could* choose to be irresponsible, and vote +1 in the
knowledge that nobody is going to support it, but I happen to believe that
the people we have voted on to the PMC over the years are actually
responsible people.
I have ZERO doubt that Apache members, by and large, vote responsibly in
this regard. The fact that Apache overall has been as successful as it
has been pretty much proves you're right and very few members are being
irresponsible. But I also believe that's because that for most, a +1
vote does imply they will support the release. Without that
implication, and without discussion of support before the vote, who's to
say *anyone* will support the release? If that implication doesn't
exist, how can the community at large every have any confidence that a
project intends to support its releases? Oh, you may have the right to
do it, but I don't believe it's RIGHT to do it.
Martin Cooper
Frank
--
Frank W. Zammetti
Author of "Practical Ajax Projects With Java Technology"
(2006, Apress, ISBN 1-59059-695-1)
and "JavaScript, DOM Scripting and Ajax Projects"
(2007, Apress, ISBN 1-59059-816-4)
and "Practical DWR 2 Projects"
(2008, Apress, ISBN 1-59059-941-1)
Java Web Parts - http://javawebparts.sourceforge.net
Supplying the wheel, so you don't have to reinvent it!
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
