On Aug 22, 2014, at 6:45 PM, David Nalley da...@gnsa.us wrote:
This is, by-the-way, why active committers should want to become PMC
members, to get the binding votes aligned to who is doing the work. The
ratio PMC member / committer in this project scares me.
I am curious why it scares
On Mon, Aug 25, 2014 at 2:23 AM, Leo Simons lsim...@schubergphilis.com wrote:
On Aug 22, 2014, at 6:45 PM, David Nalley da...@gnsa.us wrote:
This is, by-the-way, why active committers should want to become PMC
members, to get the binding votes aligned to who is doing the work. The
ratio PMC
against bitkeeper, which was a revolution
against centralized version control.
Empirically, darwinistically, it has to be this way. We’re just not good enough
at software development yet to avoid revolution.
At various points in the past, apache tried to have rules for revolutionaries,
i.e.
http
This is, by-the-way, why active committers should want to become PMC members,
to get the binding votes aligned to who is doing the work. The ratio PMC
member / committer in this project scares me.
I am curious why it scares you. It doesn't seem terribly out of the
norm. CloudStack clearly
development yet to avoid revolution.
At various points in the past, apache tried to have rules for
revolutionaries, i.e.
http://incubator.apache.org/learn/rules-for-revolutionaries.html
good read for us all
to at the same time both sanction and limit the scope of revolutions. This
can’t work
, darwinistically, it has to be this way. We’re just not good
enough at software development yet to avoid revolution.
At various points in the past, apache tried to have rules for
revolutionaries, i.e.
http://incubator.apache.org/learn/rules-for-revolutionaries.html
good read for us all
