Serge,
> Well, the tomcat 3.x vs. 4.x was an unbelievably stressful issue, and
> turned off a lot of developers to the whole project (myself and several
> others I know).
Right. Still leaves plenty of bad taste with some people. And I want to
avoid turning off anyone from contributing to James.
> > Agreed. Perhaps we could have pre-branched v3 so that people could
continue
> > to contribute code while version 2.1 was prepared for release, but the
> > consensus was that we didn't want to split our focus.
> With hindsight, I would agree... (IMHO) the 2.1 release was to get a
> stable release out there, and a branch could have done that very well.
Well, the perceived issues were procedural (some of us would have to learn
how to work with and update a branch), and social (those of us focusing on
putting out the release would be limited in our ability to participate in
new development). On the other hand, it does appear that more people are
interested in contributing new code than in the grind to polish a release.
Maybe we need to "fix" that, or maybe we need to acknowledge that apparent
psychology and deal with it.
I am hoping that we can address this in part by being more constantly ready
to release, and in a position so that we can release early and often like
Tomcat.
> Alright, this is something I would very much like to work out if/when we
> ever get James as a top-level project. The decision making for Jakarta
> is poorly worded IMHO.
They are working on that in the incubator. The general distinction is
technical vs prodedural. Code gets vetos, policies don't.
> And specifically to the file-pop3 bug, I'm pretty sure this qualifies as
> a "Showstopper" which requires lazy consensus, so Peter's -1 was a veto.
IF Peter actually cast a -1 on this code, that would be a veto. I don't
recall his vetoing a change. I would argue that such a veto would be wrong
regarding the code base, since the fix is needed at some point. It could be
an arguable issue for the contents of the release build, and should be
resolvable via CVS controls.
> I (and I think most people) treated it as a veto, as we did with other
> recent -1s. If some of them weren't and people were needlessly arguing
> against the -1s, then there is that much more of a need of voting
> process clarity.
Right. For example, the mirroring issue is not subject to a veto. Peter
expressed his opinion (which he later explained and qualified), but it was
simply a vote, not a veto.
> How about this as a way to resolve it... whoever calls for a vote states
> whether this is a consensus (has vetos) or a majority vote?
I believe that it would be OK, purely for clarity, to state what type of
vote is involved, but not to designate it. The ASF rules should always
apply.
> Well, I've got a little too much Adam Smith and capitalistic theory in
> me to rely on a system that predicates that "everyone has James' best
> interest in mind" to work. ;)
Someone has actually read "An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the
Wealth of Nations?" I am impressed. :-)
> To me, the more we can harvest the energy from individual's with
> their self-serving goals, the better we (James) will fare.
Whatever works. :-) There are many areas that can be developed, and I want
to see us grow to see that development.
> Merry Christmas to everyone!
Happy Holidays to All :-)
--- Noel
--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
