>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? >
I think the line of thinking behind the question (irrelevant of the question itself) is incorrect. Think postivively. "I have reservations about this page, so I'm going to patch it and improve it so that is acceptable to me. I relize while I feel the 10,000k view on the front page is sufficient, that not everyone (especially dull folks like that Andy Oliver) might not and might want more indepth information. So I'll submit patches removing the seemingly biased information and expanding it in a way that makes it more useful in my opinion. Furthermore I'll add a disclaimer that says the information may be out of date as committers may not update it." >What if (and I don't, I'm just asking) modification and inaction are not >enough for me, I want to veto it? Then thats pretty serious. That says "nothing about this is good and the author's contribution is rebuked". Might be a bit drastic. >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. > I sure hope so. >> 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? > No, but the bar should be higher for just vetoing and nullifying contributions then for improving upon them. One is negative and destructive the other is positive and constructive. >Surely there could be a slightly better, and simple, way of accepting >website proposals that makes it obvious that they are undergoing peer >review? >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? > Why what a novel Idea: http://jakarta.apache.org/poi/resolutions/index.html http://jakarta.apache.org/poi/resolutions/res001.html >d. > > >-- >To unsubscribe, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
