I think it's interesting that one of Ceki's main points here seems (to me) to be that when a community contains multiple implementation languages, the PMC finds it much harder to promise oversight and the ability to handle basic issues like security and code maintenance. Sorry if I'm reading too much into that Ceki.
This shows a serious flaw with the idea that TLPs should be concept and not language based that was instrumental in leading to the increase in TLPs. The solution (and I need to tag it up as a webpage because I refer to it so often) was in an email from Brian a long time back. Lots of tight, concept based TLPs (verticals), and then (horizontal) language associations that tie them together. In that case, a PMC would only be concerned with the oversight and management of a community's codebase, and they could trust in the general health of the association to provide them with necessary skills. Obviously the Apache Cobol association's health might mean that they should be worried about a Cobol release, but the PHP and .Net association would be healthy enough to leave them feeling snug and warm. Without these associations, we're splintering off into tiny fragments of societies and only finding cross-pollination at the asf-member level. *gets off soapbox....well a bit anyway* On the Jakarta bits mentioned in the thread; definitely working on bringing our dead communities into the PMC's awareness. There were some examples in which the apache-way had not been disseminated and unsurprisingly the subprojects had died (suffocation). Must hassle codehaus to see what their stats are for such things :) It's a slow process but each quarter sees improvement. To Ken's oft said phrase that 'Apache is a meritocracy', I'll actually disagree. Apache is a constant choice between meritocracy and consensus. You decide if people believe strongly on an issue, if you think they do, you seek consensus and if they don't you act meritocratic. If you're scared of despotism, you post advance notice of meritocratic acts :) Hen On Tue, 15 Mar 2005 21:00:46 +0100, Ceki Gülcü <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > At 06:37 PM 3/15/2005, Rodent of Unusual Size wrote: > > > > 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. > > > >How many contributors are there total? > > Allow to me reiterate my request to dissociate this general discussion from > the specific case of LS or log4net. As chairman of LS PMC, it is difficult > for me to participate in a general discussion if opinions I voice can > boomerang back to LS by association. > > My thanks to everyone for taking the time to respond to my questions. > > > -- > Ceki Gülcü > > The complete log4j manual: http://www.qos.ch/log4j/ > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
