<rant> It must be sooo frustrating for new projects coming in. They read the websites, read the mail archives, talk to loads and loads of people, and when they think they get it all right they send in a proposal. And then, more often than not, someone somewhere within the ASF sees "something" that is somehow wrong, and off we go to institute a new "rule" on the fly to make the new proposal somehow "invalid".
The latest example is all the debate surrounding whether or not the "glasgow" name is appropriate. Up until about a week or two ago, it certainly was accepted practice (just look around), and now 'suddenly' there's messiness. Its ok if opinions change (we had a loooong debate a few years ago about "geronimo" as a name and that made it), but it must be very confusing. Perhaps we should try and seperate this somewhat more rigidly. Eg we could have a "released" version of all the things we want a project to do and/or comply with (this is our website) and we could have an "in progress" version of the same thing (this is what changes more rapidly). And *new proposals should be evaluated against the "released" one*. Interested or concerned ASF members popping up out of the blue every now and then (Re: the threads on members@ about this) should then be restricting themselves to discussing the general case, so that specific ones can be somewhat less contentious at the start, which is probably quite healthy from a community-building point of view. Communities starting off ever so slightly irritated at on-the-fly rulemaking seems an unhealthy thing. Perhaps we should have two mailing lists. </rant> WDYT? LSD --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
