On Dec 22, 2003, at 7:27 AM, Vic Cekvenich wrote:
<BIG SNIP>
<Geir Magnusson Jr. wrote:> ... sensitive things should be on the PMC list, and non-sensitive things should be on the general@ list. </end Geir >
What could be something that is sensteive in an open source community? This is new direction. Gray areas should be well exposed. If you are ashamed of it, don't do open source community.
There are lots of things. Committer votes, for example, are considered a sensitive issue. Inter-personal disputes.
If you would have been fair with your attribution, you would have included what I then said next, namely that I felt it sensitive
"because of the confusion that it sews. My hope was for us to get our act together before we approached the rest of the community, and do it as a group."
IOW, simply to get a handle on how we approach the community to make things clear and non-confusing.
For a developer ... lets have some code in open, and the bad code we will just have in a encrypted jar. Is this open source?
What do I mean by that:
ASF used(?) to be Libreterian: If you want code to do something, commit the code to do it.
ASF used(?) to be run by commiters.
Now some are trying to develop "rulling" class, that is carving out roles for itself and rules to legislate iteligence and integrity for commiters, but does not committ itself?.
What happend to emritius commiters? People who did not CVS a chunk of code in a while lose vote rights and their berucrat office.
The people that are vocal on berucracy are same people I wonder where have they CVSed latelly.
Vic, if you've been paying ANY attention, you'd know that what we are trying to do is just the opposite - get *every* committer in Jakarta onto the PMC, *eliminating* this needless boundary.
Please re-read.
geir
-- Geir Magnusson Jr 203-247-1713(m) [EMAIL PROTECTED]
--------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
