On Mon, Aug 25, 2014 at 2:23 AM, Leo Simons wrote:
> On Aug 22, 2014, at 6:45 PM, David Nalley wrote:
>>> This is, by-the-way, why active committers should want to become PMC
>>> members, to get the binding votes aligned to who is doing the work. The
>>> ratio PMC member / committer in this pro
On Aug 22, 2014, at 6:45 PM, David Nalley wrote:
>> This is, by-the-way, why active committers should want to become PMC
>> members, to get the binding votes aligned to who is doing the work. The
>> ratio PMC member / committer in this project scares me.
>
> I am curious why it scares you. It d
nily, centos is revolutionary because it _isn’t_ a fork of RHEL. Chrome
>> is in part a revolutionary fork of safari. HTML5 is a revolutionary fork of
>> HTML4, competing with XHTML. Git was a revolution against bitkeeper, which
>> was a revolution against centralized versi
revolution against centralized version control.
>
> Empirically, darwinistically, it has to be this way. We’re just not good
> enough at software development yet to avoid revolution.
>
> At various points in the past, apache tried to have rules for
> revolutionaries,
>
> This is, by-the-way, why active committers should want to become PMC members,
> to get the binding votes aligned to who is doing the work. The ratio PMC
> member / committer in this project scares me.
>
I am curious why it scares you. It doesn't seem terribly out of the
norm. CloudStack cle
revolution against bitkeeper, which was a revolution
against centralized version control.
Empirically, darwinistically, it has to be this way. We’re just not good enough
at software development yet to avoid revolution.
At various points in the past, apache tried to have rules for revolutionaries,
i.e
