On Jan 14, 2008 9:16 PM, Frank W. Zammetti <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 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. For anyone paying attention to the project, the question shouldn't need to be asked. It should be clear from the activity on the mailing lists. What do you think, Frank? Are there people here that will support Struts 2.0.12 or 2.1.1? I think you know the answer to that, but can you point me to the discussion thread where that was established? 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. If what's the case? What's important about a +1 vote from a PMC member is that it counts towards the minimum three +1 votes required for the release to happen at all. The _implication_ of what you are saying is that, without at least three PMC members - not just committers or interested contributors, but PMC members - who are ready to support the release, that release cannot happen at all. Should we declare Struts 1 dead? Do we have three PMC members who are still willing to support further releases of it? > 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. See above. I'd bet that, on at least one version of Struts in the past, you have done exactly that - "*assume*d there will be support provided by others". 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". They probably are. But that's a long way from that being a requirement, which is the point on which this conversation started. -- Martin Cooper > 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] > >
