I do want to be clear about this piling on issue since I think there is still some misunderstanding.
I do not think there has been any piling on in the sense of trying to influence the project through stacking the voting list. That is not at all what is going on, nor is it our intention. I realize we may have created some difficulties in merging two existing projects - Celtix from ObjectWeb and Xfire from Codehaus, and that perhaps we have not thoroughly understood the Apache process in creating the proposal. But we are nonetheless simply trying to do the right thing, not stacking the deck to control the project. I completely understand that success depends on giving up control of a project and allowing the growth of a self-sustaining, diverse community interested in contributing to the project and directing it, and genuinely feeling a part of it. In fact my hope is that Apache would be a good place for this to happen, and being accused of ulterior motives where none exist actually brings up the question of a healthy community IMHO. I do have to admit that I have had some trouble understanding the Apache process very clearly, however, and it is very possible that something has gone wrong through misunderstanding. I suppose this is actually most often the case. Our approach to the initial committer list was based in part on previous experience with the Synapse proposal, and in part on our best understanding of the right way to construct such a list. To answer your question, I myself was on the initial committer list of Synapse because it seemed at the time the project was proposed that I would be contributing to it. I considered this precedent for including people with interest. So what we have now is a case where it was ok for one project but not another? We are talking about a total of two people here by the way... Some might call this "piling on" but I do not think it is in the sense it seems to be taken in terms of trying to manipulate the committer list to control the project. At this point the best course of action seems to get the project going, grant all committer rights to those on the initial list and then get the project team together to review the list and see what pruning can and should be done. That is why I keep saying that I don't see any piling on here - whatever is happening is simply the result of an attempt to understand the Apache process, and to do the right thing to create a successful project. Any and all help greatly appreciated, as always. Eric -----Original Message----- From: Mads Toftum [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, October 04, 2006 6:18 AM To: general@incubator.apache.org Subject: Re: Policy on Initial Committership On Tue, Oct 03, 2006 at 03:22:36PM -0400, Newcomer, Eric wrote: > I do not think there has been any piling on. We reviewed each name on > the list carefully and a name only went on the list if we were convinced > that the individual had either (1) contributed previously to either > Celtix or Xfire or (2) expressed a genuine, specific interest in a > potential contribution of value to the new project. > People that really do fall under (1) should be fine, but I can't get my head around why you think that sticking the people in (2) on the proposal should be fine. Let them show merit like any real committer would by contributing to the project and then hold a vote. In fact, (2) reeks of stacking the deck to gain the upper hand by putting enough people on the project to have a majority vote. (and yes, I really wish that the people who sit on proof that this has already happened would make it public). vh Mads Toftum -- http://soulfood.dk --------------------------------------------------------------------- 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]
