Sure, but it is counter to the goals of an Apache project to allow *anything* to block progress other than a technical veto. It is "bad form" for anyone to take a lock on RMing the codebase, just as it is "bad policy" to instill code freezes on trunk. Find another way.
I'm yelling at Chris today, but tomorrow I may be yelling at Marvin for being too much of a coordination hub for this project. We need to start documenting the common goals that we all can agree on, but at the same time ensure that every committer has equal say in the control and direction of the project. Kinda hard to do that right now as so much of this codebase was authored by Marvin, but over time if enough of us scribble on it we can all share the same goals. ----- Original Message ---- > From: Marvin Humphrey <[email protected]> > To: [email protected] > Sent: Fri, May 20, 2011 6:58:55 PM > Subject: Re: [lucy-dev] 0.1.0 release prep > > On Fri, May 20, 2011 at 12:56:05PM -0700, Mattmann, Chris A (388J) wrote: > > OK, let me be more clear and concrete -- I'm will cut it before or at the > > latest, by EOD Sunday. That's what I meant. > > Thanks, Chris. > > I'm concerned by the somewhat personal tone in the heated exchange that went > past just before this, such as when Joe said, "No more stalling Chris", and > when Chris responded, "Get over yourself Joe". Chris's good intentions and > investment in Lucy's success are not in doubt, and there's no way he would be > purposefully "stalling". I don't think Joe meant to imply that, but the > wording was regrettable. And regarding the rejoinder, dialing down a response > instead of ratcheting up -- or simply not responding at all -- is an extremely > valuable skill that ideally we would like to see our forum participants > deploy. Both Apache at large and the KinoSearch community that moved here > have long traditions of keeping things constructive that we should all strive > to uphold. > > That said, I'm grateful for Joe's energy and desire to move us forward, and > the admirable responsiveness in Chris's followup, above. I'm relieved and > happy that the end result has turned out to be people resolving their > differences and arriving at a concrete plan acceptable to everyone. > > Moving on to another important aspect of the release... > > Chris, the last item on the ReleaseGuide for the RM has says this about the > release announcement email: > > Use the entry in the CHANGES file as the basis for your email. > > That will work fine for all releases going forward, but it's not ideal for > 0.1.0. The CHANGES entry for this release is minimalist, just mentioning the > software grant. > > As a substitute, I think we should work up a draft release announcement on the > dev list over the next couple days using an enumeration of Lucy's features as > a starting point. > > Marvin Humphrey > >
