On Fri, Jul 11, 2008 at 12:46 PM, Emmanuel Lecharny <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Alan D. Cabrera wrote: > >> >> On Jul 11, 2008, at 9:17 AM, Jeremy Haile wrote: >> >> I do feel like we are spending undue amounts of time discussing a logging >>> implementation, rather than addressing the serious holes in JSecurity's >>> security implementation, unit tests, and documentation. >>> >>> In my opinion, those are much more worthy of heated debate and much more >>> worthy of our time. Hence I think the faster we can get through the logging >>> issue and on to important issues, the better. >>> >>> >> I know what you mean but, this is the ASF way. Things need to be >> discussed and a consensus reached. I know that it's agonizing for the >> committers but this is what brings in the community participation, if they >> feel that then can contribute. After all, this is why you've come here to >> incubate at the ASF, no? >> > +1 to what Alan says. I > > mentioned a vote but if no consensus is reached, you will get -1, and this > is certainly not what you want :) Nothing wrong with a -1. No one should fear vetos. I view a veto as a queue telling us we need to talk before doing anything more. Just a flag for me. I like to see a project exercise veto resolution in the incubator. Just shows how well the project is doing. > > > A vote is much more a way to state that the concensus has been reached. > > Last not least, we are all having strong positions, but it's more important > to understand why others don't share them. Sometime its better to make > compromises on small things than to stand on principles, for the good of the > community. > > And as a touch of humor, as a friend told me once : "this is not because we > disagree that you are right" :) > hehehe - you mean that I'm always right! Alex -- Microsoft gives you Windows, Linux gives you the whole house ...
