Antonio,
I believe the obligation is to help with the section you know, not
necessarily the entire system.
Why would you vote to release something knowing that once it's out there may
be nobody to help people with problems?
Al.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Antonio Petrelli" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Struts Developers List" <dev@struts.apache.org>
Sent: Tuesday, January 15, 2008 8:03 AM
Subject: Re: [VOTE] Should voting +1 on a release imply that the vote
intends to help support the release?
2008/1/15, Ted Husted <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
Our community guidelines suggest that:
----
"The act of voting carries certain obligations. Voters are not only
stating their opinion, they are also agreeing to help do the work."
---
For me voting does not mean "obligation" of support, but "moral
obligation".
Sincerely I see the terms "volunteer" and "obligation" as contradicting
themselves. If I am a volunteer, this means that I am working with no
money
for it, and no one forces me to work on it. This does not mean that I am
not
willing to help: the day that I cannot help, I will tell the community and
retire myself. It's just "trusting" ourselves.
If we were SpringSource, we were paid to work on Spring: in this case I
see
the obligation of supporting the release (paid or not).
Moreover, many of us know only a little piece of the frameworks: first of
all there are two main classes, the S1 and S2. And among these classes
many
of us know only a little bit of these frameworks. For example, I mainly
try
to help on building Struts 2 and on Tiles integration in S2 and S1. Many
of
us do not know _how_ to help in certain cases (for example I don't know
how
to help on the portlet plugin).
At Tiles we removed this obligation, and I agree with this decision.
Ciao
Antonio
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
