On Dec 22, 2005, at 6:23 PM, Roy T. Fielding wrote:
On Dec 22, 2005, at 10:53 AM, Erik Abele wrote:
On 21.12.2005, at 21:57, Roy T. Fielding wrote:
On Dec 21, 2005, at 11:04 AM, Ted Leung wrote:
How is this possible when any other PMC can vote to bring a
project in without approval of the incubator PMC? Just look at
the raft of projects being brought in via Geronimo and the WS
PMC. There's not a thing I can do, regardless of the merits.
The only thing I can say is whether or not their community is
good enough to merit graduation.
Right, and that's the only thing you are qualified to do. You don't
have the right to tell other people what they can or cannot do at
the ASF. You don't have the right to say that one project is more
deserving of our resources than some other project. What you do
have
is the right to be involved, to help their incubation (or not), and
to vote against their graduation if you so desire.
So nobody has the right but you do? Or how can your smack-down of
the Tuscany proposal be interpreted?
Because Tuscany was proposed to the incubator PMC (not another PMC)
and I do have a vote here. In any case, I objected to the proposal
because it was empty of significant content, and removed by objection
once it was filled. I did not prevent them from working on an
architecture that I still believe to be a waste of time -- I only
made sure that they all agreed on what they wanted to work on,
because I think that is a minimum for any collaboration.
As the sponsor/champion of Tuscany, I'll be the first to admit that
Roy was actually right on with his criticism.
The proposal didn't reflect what the proposers were actually
thinking, and it forced the team to review and rewrite, and the
result is IMO a stronger, clearer proposal and statement of intent.
geir
--
Geir Magnusson Jr +1-203-665-6437
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
