+42 (which, I believe, is also the average number of messages per single thread on this list at the moment).
Anyway, I'm definitely in agreement with "versioning" policy. Podlings should comply to the latest agreed set at the time of entry, and then a more recent one on graduation (so even if something comes up on the way in, there's time to resolve it before they go out). I agree with the idea of a separate list of proposals, but could take it or leave it. Cheers, Brett On 08/08/06, Sanjiva Weerawarana <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
ABSOLUTELY +1! I also feel really terrible about our "unprofessionalism" when it comes to handling proposals. +1 for another list for proposal submissions- [EMAIL PROTECTED] and for this to remain for the current purpose. Sanjiva. On Mon, 2006-08-07 at 23:24 -0700, Leo Simons wrote: > <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] > --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
-- Apache Maven - http://maven.apache.org "Better Builds with Maven" book - http://library.mergere.com/ --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
