Hi, I'll try not to keep banging on about this, I know its not that important in the great scheme of Why We Are Here :-) but ..
> 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. Ok, thats fair enough. > 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. The issue for me is that the website is in a perpetual state of releasing the head of cvs every time a change is made, there is no un-released development state for the website, and while there is arguably a conceptual pre-release state while things are being reviewed it isn't clear to people who don't know our ways that some documents may carry the full weight of approval, or be Rules, or Codes of Conduct, yet others, undifferentiated, are merely proposals and possibly contentious at that. [The PMC should, of course, have unfettered right to publish. Its part of their role.] > We have that section. It's called CVS. :) It operates exactly > the way you > describe. Not if the head is going to be built and released everytime someone commits something new. and if it isnt then its harder for people to review new material. d. -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
