I'm not Ted, but let me take a stab. :) ----- Original Message ----- From: "Danny Angus" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Jakarta General List" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Friday, March 22, 2002 7:09 AM Subject: RE: Jakarta Overview
> Ted, > I don't want to have an argument, and I'm not criticising Philipp for > offering, nor for the effort he obviously put in. > I do have some reservations with this particular page, which I'm not going > to raise again, if anyones interested they've already read them. > > I would like to take you up on a couple of points you make though, > > > The overview has been donated to the ASF, and is under Jakarta rules > > now. > > Does this mean that anything "donated" is accepted on behalf of the project, > by anyone with karma, without discussion and can therefore only be openly > opposed once it has already been accepted? Yes, that is the "Commit Then Review" philosophy. You cannot prevent anyone from initially committing anything, but one it has been committed you can vote it down. > > If anyone wants to make it more objective, have at it. If not, > > leave it alone and it will wither away. > > What if (and I don't, I'm just asking) modification and inaction are not > enough for me, I want to veto it? > I don't have enough Karma for Jakarta-site2, but if I did would I be within > my rights to arbitrarily remove it? I think, and hope, not. > Therefore it seems that it is a bigger hurdle for a donation of this kind to > be vetoed than accepted. You cannot arbitrarily remove it, but you can veto it. Under the current, slightly strange, default voting rules for Jakarta, Ted would have to talk you out of your objection; if he could not, he might have to back out his change (or you could do it for him). Any changes to a "product" require consensus approval. Does the website fit under the definition of a Jakarta "product"? A good question, which does not come up very often. Usually committers are more permissive of website changes then code changes. > > Regardless of the content, it's important to recognize that the initial > > author Did The Right Thing. The overview was prepared in XML and > > required no afterwork to commit. This makes him a Contributor in my > > book. If more of our users went to the trouble this person went to, we'd > > have more and better documentation throughout Jakarta. > > You're absolutely right, I agree utterly with that statement, and I hope my > miserable grumping doesn't put him off. > > > > Apache stands for patching ... > > But we don't want to have to patch any old thing that comes swinging by, do > we? > > Surely there could be a slightly better, and simple, way of accepting > website proposals that makes it obvious that they are undergoing peer > review? Well you can always exercise your veto. Then the committer backs it out, discusses changes on the list, makes some modifications, and resubmits for another vote. > And in the interests of providing construtive criticism I'll propose -- > A "proposals" section of the site, into which anyone with karma can commit > any submissions and from which documents can be promoted by lazy concensus > of all jakarta commiters. Its stylesheet will include a footer explaining > the status of proposal documents(if thats possible). -- for instance? > > d. We have that section. It's called CVS. :) It operates exactly the way you describe. - Morgan _________________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
