Frank W. Zammetti wrote:
I was *going* to say that the difference is that when the project
started it was me and me alone, and that isn't the case any more.
There are two other committers, and we have project bylaws that
effectively gives them the ability to do things even if I 100%
disagree. I started out with complete control, and right now I
essentially have none, and I must follow the will of the leadership.
Ultimately, we are accountable to the community insofar as if we do a
bad job, there will be *no* community :)
And that's *exactly* how the Struts project works. It was started by one
person, then a few more joined and now they collectively make decisions.
Even if the founder of the project disagrees.
Some people seem to look at Shale being part of the Struts project as a
sign that one person controls the project and always gets his own way.
In fact, that is the complete opposite of the truth. That Shale is now a
Struts sub-project was a result of a disagreement between committers
over the future of Struts and what should become Struts 2.0. IMHO that
disagreement was handled in a very mature, thoughtful way which resulted
in Shale becoming a subproject and a peer to Struts Action, rather than
replacing it. The jury's still out on which will become more widely
used, but that's not really the point. Both can happily co-exist here
and one does not have to fail for the other to succeed.
So, there *is* healthy disagreement, non-committers *are* listened to
during the discussion and then a decision is made and we move on.
Sometimes ;-)
Steve
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
