Oh, I totally understand what you're saying. And I respectfully and totally disagree with it on several levels.
We can leave it at that, or you can propose a Resolution to the Board to enforce terminology whenever different communities want to communicate here at Apache. Should the Board pass such a resolution, then the svn community will conform. We are not special; we just use different terms. All projects are given broad leeway in how they run their project. That *is* part of the Apache Way. We are very slightly "non-standard" in one way, and other projects differ in other ways. If you want to iron out those disparities, then get a Board Resolution to do it. Cheers, -g On Thu, Aug 19, 2010 at 18:45, Craig L Russell <craig.russ...@oracle.com> wrote: > I wish we had completed this discussion while subversion was still in > incubation, while the subversion community could learn the common Apache > terminology and have no need for translation of the terms. > > Instead, a suggestion to that effect was brutally shot down. > > And since it's apparently not clear what my point is, I'll repeat it: > > Apache has a common set of terms that everyone who participates is expected > to understand. They are documented in the foundation "How we work" pages. > > Projects are free to have their own set of rules and terminology. If they > differ much from standard Apache governance, there's an opportunity for them > to have their own bylaws. > > When communicating with the wider Apache community, the standard terms are > all that are needed. Parentheticals in such things as board reports, which > are widely disseminated, might seem useful early in the project but are > unnecessary very quickly. If they serve to clarify for the wider community, > ok. But if parentheticals' only purpose is project communication, I believe > that they are best avoided, as project members should know the Apache > terminology (before exiting incubation). > > Craig > > On Aug 19, 2010, at 2:17 PM, Joe Schaefer wrote: > >> Didn't you just suggest that Greg summarily drop >> his use of local terminology from his reports, and >> don't you consider the Subversion report a community >> document, and therefore of educational value for the >> wider community, not just the pmc, in some sense? >> >> >> ----- Original Message ---- >>> >>> From: Craig L Russell <craig.russ...@oracle.com> >>> To: general@incubator.apache.org >>> Sent: Thu, August 19, 2010 4:09:19 PM >>> Subject: Re: Subversion full/partial committer (was: Re: an experiment) >>> >>> Hi Joe, >>> >>> Please read my messages again. I'm not suggesting anything of the sort. >>> >>> Craig >>> >>> On Aug 19, 2010, at 11:45 AM, Joe Schaefer wrote: >>> >>>> Cmon Craig. Subversion is a 10-year old community. Making major >>>> changes >>>> in basic terminology isn't something that happens in a day. >>>> >>> >>> Craig L Russell >>> Architect, Oracle >>> http://db.apache.org/jdo >>> 408 276-5638 mailto:craig.russ...@oracle.com >>> P.S. A good JDO? O, Gasp! >>> >>> >>> --------------------------------------------------------------------- >>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org >>> For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org >>> >>> >> >> >> >> >> --------------------------------------------------------------------- >> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org >> For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org >> > > Craig L Russell > Architect, Oracle > http://db.apache.org/jdo > 408 276-5638 mailto:craig.russ...@oracle.com > P.S. A good JDO? O, Gasp! > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org > For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
