--- Sam Ruby <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Rodent of Unusual Size wrote: > > Sam Ruby wrote: > > > >>The question is: > >> > >>Is the working assumption that [EMAIL PROTECTED] > will be a divided > >>community, where "each person is working on their > own stuff" -- a bunch > >>of personal playgrounds, only loosely falling > under some concept called > >>"commons"? > >> > >>Or is the working assumption being that committers > to [EMAIL PROTECTED] > >>form one community, with the assumption being that > all participants are > >>adults? > > > > i believe that neither of these alternatives is > fully descriptive, though > > i find both a bit .. eh.. suboptimally phrased. i > believe there will be > > one community, with shared goals, but that there > will be subcommunities > > focussed on the different aspects. and the > presumption is that anyone > > who has commit access will behave responsibly. > > I intentionally borrowed the phrasing of Greg in the > first case, and > Peter in the second case. Something I will do again > [1]: > > "there needs to be a more formal system in place to > limit the damage > that can be done. The best way to do that is to > partition access to > those who merit it." > > Is the intent of Apache commons to set up such a > partitioned community > where a person who participates in one Apache > commons subcommunity is > not presumed to have merit in other Apache commons > subcommunity? > > - Sam Ruby > > [1] > http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=avalon-dev&m=103694442418388&w=2 >
I don't think we've discussed "merit" exactly, but there were some discussions on who gets karma, who gets to vote etcetera. I'll have to reach into my imperfect memory... The prevailing opinion, at least among those who have participated in the discussion to date, seems to be that each component (subcommunity?) has its own karma and voters, and that each new committer be granted karma by a majority vote of existing component committers even if they commit to other components. I don't believe we've brought this issue to a formal "vote" (in this case actually a poll rather than a binding decision, since the PMC actually decides). Since your quoted Peter at the kickoff, here's one of his relevant opinions re who gets to vote: > It is up to the components maintainers/developers. > They are the people who are > in the best position to judge whether a candidate > should be given voting > rights. Some may choose to be more exclusive and > some may be a free for all - > however it will always be the develoeprs who decide > where their component > evolves. to which I replied (in part): > Well, I don't quite agree, but I'm willing to > concede the point as long as once I gain commit > access to "Apache Commons", I can commit to all > components and not just the component(s) to > which I've already contributed. but it looks like I'm losing that battle too. :) One of the relevant threads is "Re: veto rights (was: Naming issues)", just in case you are an archive jockey. - Morgan ===== Morgan Delagrange http://jakarta.apache.org/taglibs http://jakarta.apache.org/commons http://axion.tigris.org http://jakarta.apache.org/watchdog __________________________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? U2 on LAUNCH - Exclusive greatest hits videos http://launch.yahoo.com/u2
