"Andrew C. Oliver" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Andy, not everyone grew up in Texas! :) I don't eat beef anymore (you know
>> mad-cow disease and smallpox in the UK)
>>
> Dern Europeans ain' speaking proper 'merican. Anyhow, just wait around
> and you'll catch me speaking Spanish too.
No estas problema, chico! :)
>> From general@ I want feedback as well, we're talking about it, several
>> people responded, so I'm trying to challenge my own -1 with comments not
>> only from the restricted group of Tomcat...
>>
> Okay...thats fine. This Andy alarm was triggered because I thought you
> were looking for creating a more top down organization.
Nope, I'm actually trying to figure out how commit access should be given,
but that will come later in another email...
>> Do you realize that when you give access to someone in _your_ community,
>> you're opening a backdoor that entitles that person _ALSO_ to other
>> "privileges" and that your decision will or could, at the end, affect other
>> people that you don't even know?
>>
> Yes, again, back to the you're right to breed example... Jakarta is a
> community of communities. The power flows bottom up. Not top down.
> (in general, according to my limited viewpoint of the world)
Correct, indeed, that's why we elect people from the bottom to the top, for
example, to sit on the PMC, or (since I just closed the vote right now) on
the ASF board...
>> Worthless on the matter of making me change my vote FOR THAT PERSON
>> SPECIFICALLY, maybe. Worthless to the idea of a better structured and
>> integrated Jakarta-as-a-whole community? Hardly.
>>
> I am against a top-down decision process in bringing in new committers.
+1...
> There is such a process for bringing in new projects, and thats
> probably the right thing to do.
Yes, because our infrastructure is limited, and our scope is limited, we're
not SourceForge, right?
> But I'm in no position to know what a
> person has done for Tomcat and whether he should get a vote in Tomcat.
As I'm not in that position for POI...
> As for the fact that that gives him some limited status and control in
> the project as a whole, you're looking at that wrong in my opinion. Its
> Tomcat's right to grant him that power. If Tomcat is misusing that
> right, its up to you as a Tomcat committer with a binding vote to stop
> them. I think you did the right thing.
But there might be cases in which we _want_ that to happen (I'll detail in a
further email I'm working on).
>> Just one question, have you ever voted -1 on a committer? (and not just to
>> you, but to every committer on this list).
>>
> I'm a sneaky b*stard. I never propose anyone on list until I ask them
> offlist if he wants to be a committer. I apply the most patches and so
> I generally propose most of the committers (based on how bad you've
> inundated me with patches, I consider making you a committer a
> punishment for making me do too much work :-p). I have told people "no
> you can't be a committer" or "you can ask but I'll vote -1" before, but
> thats as far as it went.
That's good, you do most of the work, you _know_ the person you're dealing
with, you can propose him as a committer or not... You know what's going
on... Frankly in my case I didn't...
> I have been tempted once, there was one person who I thought really
> should be made a committer, but I chose to abstain from the vote because
> I was not prepared to air out the reasons why.
That's what happened last week with another committer vote on tomcat-dev
(same story), I didn't vote...
> If I felt someone was being made a committer too quickly I certainly
> would do the same as you and -1 them.
So you (at the end) agree :) Good! :) (And given me some valuable point for
the next step)...
Pier
--
[Perl] combines all the worst aspects of C and Lisp: a billion of different
sublanguages in one monolithic executable. It combines the power of C with
the readability of PostScript. [Jamie Zawinski - DNA Lounge - San Francisco]
--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
