> It seems to me that no one dares challenge the mythical 3 committer > requirement because of the fear of retribution.
Why do you say mythical? Is it imaginary, fictitious, lacking in factual basis or historical validity? To the contrary. You acknowledge its validity further along in your message:
I did *not* acknowledge the validity of the 3 committer rule, but nor did I dismiss it.
> Please note that I am not claiming that the 3 committer requirement is > entirely without justification. Obviously, the ASF does not want to end up > holding the bag for zombie projects. The existence of 3 active committers > appears like a simple and measurable way of ensuring longevity.
What is so special about the number 3? What's wrong with 5 committers? With 4? With 2? With 1?
The Logging PMC has more then 3 people to vote, but are you willing to support the project if the one guy currently developing the code goes walkabout? That has been the question I've consistently put to you from the very beginning.
I won't make any empty promises here. I don't think the LS PMC could take over log4x code if the current contributors stopped working on it.
> Instead of only admitting failure-proof projects, we should perhaps > take a chance with small yet innovative projects.
That is one purpose for the Incubator. To take those chances on small, yet innovative, projects, but also to ensure that before they become ASF projects, they are sustainable.
Does "sustainable" necessarily mean 3 or more committers? Is a project with a single committer yet consistent committer less viable than a project with 30 disillusioned and inactive committters?
What do people involved with several different projects have to say on the matter?
--- Noel
-- Ceki Gülcü
The complete log4j manual: http://www.qos.ch/log4j/
--------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
