----- Original Message ----- From: "Danny Angus" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Jakarta General List" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Friday, March 22, 2002 11:55 AM Subject: RE: Jakarta Overview
> 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.] Yup, right now it's definitely an honor's system. The website is not really a subproject with a list of committers; it's more of a free-for-all. We rely on people to be responsible, not to make unsubstantiated claims, and not to implicitly add to or contradict the rules of the Jakarta project (only the PMC can do that). As far as "guidelines" are concerned, it's difficult to sneak in questionable policies; too many people (like me ;) monitor the commits to jakarta-site2. That's just my opinion though; I haven't seen many abuses to date. With regard to the current debate over the Jakarta Overview document, I think things are progressing as they should. Someone contributed it, Ted committed and posted it, and now we're discussing it. Unless current concerns are quelled, it will (or at least should) never gain a permanent link from the site. And just to add my own two cents, I don't like that document. To date, the policy has been to promote top-level subprojects on the top level of the site, and let the individual subprojects describe themselves. I still think that's the sensible approach. Even if the contentious language of the Overview document were reviewed, I don't think one monster document describing every component of every project is maintainable or all that useful. I think the real issue is that some subprojects are a little hard to drill into, but that should be addressed by each subproject, not by a dubious meta-document. > > 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. The best way to address this is to subscribe to the [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list and monitor the commits. It's fairly painless; jakarta-site2 is a surprisingly low-traffic repository. Essentially you are right though. It's important to be vigilant with the site. Occasionally I see, for example, someone post news items concerning "Jakarta's view on X"; that's often inappropriate. Also I think we can rest assured that current and emeritus PMC members watch those commits too. - 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]>
