I don't understand the iron hand analogy. I was expressing the use of a vote to allow or disallow critical development outside of Apache. The vote would lead to a consensus, no?
On Fri, Aug 2, 2013 at 10:41 AM, Stephen Connolly < [email protected]> wrote: > On 2 August 2013 16:32, Paul Benedict <[email protected]> wrote: > > > Furthermore, I'd like to see explicit procedural rules on Maven Core and > > forking. For example, if there's a critical component needing development > > for Core, and a PMC expresses that such development will be done outside > of > > Apache and then used as a dependency, shouldn't there be a vote on that? > > > > Votes should be a tool to confirm consensus... not an iron hand. > > If the consensus of the developers is to use the dependency which is > external to the project, then that is fine. If there is no consensus then > the dependency will not be introduced. > > We already have a policy that adding Category B dependencies to Core > requires approval of the PMC, I don't see that there is much value in > adding even more to this document... but if you can suggest a patch and > people agree with it... > > -Stephen > -- Cheers, Paul
