On 3 Feb 2006, at 11:33, Rodent of Unusual Size wrote:
James Strachan wrote:
On 3 Feb 2006, at 09:18, Sanjiva Weerawarana wrote:
Absolutely -1: The first time I ever saw any of this topic was
Wed, 1 Feb 2006 12:20:32 -0700 (Thu, 01:20 LKT)
and now at
Thu, 2 Feb 2006 16:22:28 +0000 (22:22 LKT)
you want to have a vote on it? You've GOT to be kidding.
I called a vote to see what people thought about it, particularly the
project sponsor, the geronimo PMC.
You don't vote to get opinions or discussion. The actual
text being voted on was:
"accept the donation into the ServiceMix incubator project"
The contributors want to donate their code to the ServiceMix
community and all indications are that the ServiceMix community want
to accept the code and want to work with the contributors; so I
thought it was right to seek approval for this course of action from
the sponsor PMC. Bear in mind we are still in the incubator anyway so
there is plenty of time for folks to review the code, watch the
community in action, get involved and participate before attempts are
made to leave the incubator.
The idea of incubation is that the project is still not
a part of Apache and hasn't quite become a meritocracy etc..
I understand that, which is why we are asking for the sponsor, the
Geronimo PMC to vote.
That's very convoluted to my mind, although it *is* currently
early in the morning here.
:)
A package gets accepted as a podling,
and then later the sponsor, a group external to the podling,
decides to add more to it?
Well no-one has decided yet, that's why we're voting ;) - but the
point of the vote was to ask the sponsor PMC to allow the podling to
be able to accept a code donation as well as canvassing the
ServiceMix community to see if they'd like to accept it. (Maybe this
caused some confusion having just 1 vote?)
Admittedly the podling itself isn't
allowed to make the decision, but that's still an odd scenario.
Regardless of whether it has happened before, it's clearly
an exception rather than the rule, and therefore subject to
scrutiny.
OK. But I thought it was fine for issues to come up in votes, for
them to be debated & addressed and then later for action to be taken?
Its certainly been my impression of how things tend to work on all
the apache projects i've been on - apologies if I'm mistaken.
The way this particular potential donation has been handled proves
without a shadow of a doubt that this project (ServiceMix) is not
running The Apache Way.
I don't see how the project is not following the Apache Way. I find
this comment particularly puzzling as you voted yourself in to be a
mentor of the ServiceMix project.
And I find it particularly troubling that a mentor of the
podling in question is so strongly opposed to this tack.
My objection was more to that sentence - of labelling the ServiceMix
project as not following the Apache Way when the main issue in
Sanjiva's mail to me seems to be my handling of the vote. i.e. I'd
much rather people say "bad James, you're not acting in an Apache
Way" or "you really messed up that vote" than to make, what feels at
least, a little derogatory comment about the entire ServiceMix
community as a whole which has been working very hard to follow the
incubation process and the Apache Way.
If Sanjiva, a mentor of ServiceMix and therefore supposedly
closer to it than most.. if *he* thinks there's something
awkward about the way this is being handled, then I think
attention should be paid to him.
Absolutely; we're all paying attention to everyone's comment on this
issue.
James
-------
http://radio.weblogs.com/0112098/
