Re: testing.apache.org

[Rahul Akolkar]

On 6/11/06, robert burrell donkin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

On Thu, 2006-06-08 at 22:50 -0700, Phil Steitz wrote:
 Rahul Akolkar wrote:

snip/

 
  Per the umbrella concern, the question then becomes what -- if any --
  are the mitigating factors that can address such a concern with
  regards to this proposal. Based on Hen's email, seems like the ball is
  still in the board's court -- as we wait for the next meeting -- so
  maybe its premature to discuss if we should be trying to address those
  comments yet?
 I would also like to understand exactly what the problem is and what
 mitigating steps may be possible.  In particular, I would very much
 appreciate a definition of umbrella that allows Geronimo, Logging,
 Jakarta Commons, DB, XML, Web Services and Struts,  but somehow
 disallows Testing.

(this is the way i see the world and so is likely biased)

the ASF runs on sub-minimal rules. most votes are subjective and not
objective. the criteria applied are personal and evolve over time. past
decisions are not revised to take account of changing opinions.


snap/

Thanks for that input Robert, seems in line with what I had
anticipated -- nice and fuzzy on an objective level.

The thing that is clear, however, is that this is membership driven
(as it should be too, IMO) so I'll pretty much step aside at this
point and return to my seat as a casual (yet keenly interested)
observer.

-Rahul



there is no rule against umbrella projects and so no single consensus
definition is needed. their is quite a diversity of opinions on umbrella
nature amongst the members. (i won't give my opinions on umbrella nature
now - they represent a minority viewpoint amongst the membership and may
be misleading.)

the board is elected by the members and so reflects the opinions of the
membership. there is a strong consensus that umbrella-ness is a warning
sign. just as there isn't a single objective definition, there is no one
definitive reason why members believe this. (again, i won't give my
opinions now - they represent a minority viewpoint amongst the
membership and so may be misleading.)

recently (for various reasons) there has been a definite hardening of
attitudes.

- robert



-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: testing.apache.org

[robert burrell donkin]

On Mon, 2006-06-12 at 14:24 -0400, Rahul Akolkar wrote:
 On 6/11/06, robert burrell donkin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
  On Thu, 2006-06-08 at 22:50 -0700, Phil Steitz wrote:
   Rahul Akolkar wrote:
 snip/
   
Per the umbrella concern, the question then becomes what -- if any --
are the mitigating factors that can address such a concern with
regards to this proposal. Based on Hen's email, seems like the ball is
still in the board's court -- as we wait for the next meeting -- so
maybe its premature to discuss if we should be trying to address those
comments yet?
   I would also like to understand exactly what the problem is and what
   mitigating steps may be possible.  In particular, I would very much
   appreciate a definition of umbrella that allows Geronimo, Logging,
   Jakarta Commons, DB, XML, Web Services and Struts,  but somehow
   disallows Testing.
 
  (this is the way i see the world and so is likely biased)
 
  the ASF runs on sub-minimal rules. most votes are subjective and not
  objective. the criteria applied are personal and evolve over time. past
  decisions are not revised to take account of changing opinions.
 
 snap/
 
 Thanks for that input Robert, seems in line with what I had
 anticipated -- nice and fuzzy on an objective level.

you know me too well :)

often fuzziness indicates that the issues haven't really been completely
settled as yet

 The thing that is clear, however, is that this is membership driven
 (as it should be too, IMO) so I'll pretty much step aside at this
 point and return to my seat as a casual (yet keenly interested)
 observer.

we don't have the answers. we may not even know the questions. but we do
have confidence in our ability to learn and evolve. that's one reason
why the ASF chooses to grow policy and why policy changes over time.

it's important that every consensus is challenged. once any consensus
opinion of the membership is accepted as true just because it is
received from that group, ossification and group speak sets in.
evolution and growth stops. these are the real threats to apache. 

we need to people to ask 'why?' (so please don't stop) 

coming back to henri's comments: the ASF prefers self-organisation.
reorganisations are much more likely to be approved if it's the
committers involved who are pushing for them. if the communities are
effected are strongly in favour then this has great weight.  

- robert



-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]