On Wed, Jan 28, 2009 at 5:52 AM, Jim Jagielski <[email protected]> wrote: > > On Jan 28, 2009, at 8:23 AM, Noah Slater wrote: > >> On Wed, Jan 28, 2009 at 08:03:17AM -0500, Jim Jagielski wrote: >>> >>> Sorry, that's not how the ASF works. There is no concept of BDFL. >>> Everyone's vote and opinion on the PMC has the exact same weight. >>> Anyone can legally and officially veto anything (with a solid technical >>> reason). >>> >>> If the concept of BDFL is crucial to CouchDB, then it does not >>> belong under the ASF... >> >> ... >>> >>> As long as it *is* the vision of the PMC, and not the vision of one >>> person and the PMC, like sheep, simply accept it... >> >> I am really struggling to understand the comprehension failure here. >> >> In summary: >> >> * The ASF works by giving every member of the PMC a binding vote in all >> decisions. Each member of the PMC has the same power. >> >> * By definition, each member of the PMC has the privilege to choose how >> they >> vote and for what reasons. >> >> * If the members of the PMC decide on a personal basis that they wish to >> accept guidance from one person as a BDFL type figure that is absolutely >> their imperative. >> >> * You can see from previous votes that we are all happy to disagree with >> each >> other, including Damien, when we feel a particular way about something. >> I >> resent your implication that there is any "sheepishness" about the >> process. >> >> * To suggest any alternative to this is to be encouraging us as a PMC to >> purposefully disagree with each other and cause problems simply because >> we >> have the power to do so. >> >> * To imply that we *mindlessly* follow Damien about like lost sheep is >> both >> insulting and incredibly presumptuous. >> >> As a PMC member I am happy to be guided by Damien's vision for CouchDB. >> >> If you wish to be a PMC member who isn't, there is a process in place for >> that. > > Yes, and it's called the ASF process. > > All of the above seems to reinforce the concept that one person's vote > is more important than any else's on the PMC. I am struggling to > understand the comprehension failure here. This is *not* the way > the ASF works. >
I know this has been covered in subsequent replies, but I was doing that whole sleep thing while this thread got exciting. I think CouchDB fits well into the Apache Way. When I disagree with Damien or any of the other PMCs, I don't hesitate to make it known. On the other hand, there are parts of the vision and the code, that I trust Damien to understand better than I do. At the same time, there are aspects of CouchDB's vision and code where I very much trust my own instincts and experience. I think that each of the PMC members feels the same way, and that shows up, in discussions and the commit log, as each of us have parts of the project we focus most on. The governance questions on this thread are interesting. Nothing like first-hand experience to show the value of an institution like the ASF. The transactional nature of bulk_docs has not been decided. In my opinion, nothing is decided until it hits code. I think we could have a fruitful technical discussion on this topic, but the accusatory tone with which it was begun may not be the best strategy. > It's to create > a community that *survives*. I've been putting in long days working in the guts of CouchDB, and querying Damien when I get stuck, even when some problems might be more quickly handled by him, precisely because having a single person know the whys and hows of CouchDB's "deep magic" is not a sustainable strategy. It will take time, but I have every hope that this project will outgrow its original roots, and that we'll have a whole group of developers who are capable of making the tough technical decisions. I'm not in any way worried about the community. I think this vigorous discussion is a sign of a healthy group of interested people. It's too bad that it started from such a strange (and in my opinion, unfounded) perspective. The CouchDB motto is "Relax". This means if someone makes an offhand comment about a potential API change, which seems like a bad idea to you, it's best to reply about the API change, not about the manner in which you first heard of it's possibility. I don't think it will do the project any good to have everyone stepping on tip-toes to avoid giving the wrong impression about what's been "decided". Chris (I hope I don't come off too grumpy here - running on 1/2 my usual sleep today.) -- Chris Anderson http://jchris.mfdz.com
