Re: [POLL] How to implement XHMTL support

[Ted Husted <hu...@apache.org>]

11/13/2002 12:50:38 PM, Eddie Bush <ek...@swbell.net> wrote:
><whisper>Don't bother drawing a ballot up - these guys don't use 
it! 
> They're all like thinking outside the box and adding options to 
it, 
>dude!  ... and there's that one fellow who is always saying "put 
your 
>code where your mouth is - we only vote on code" - while standing 
there 
>with a wild, Clint Eastwood look on his face!  (Go ahead punk - 
make my 
>release-candidate!)  In any case, most people will tell you to 
ask for 
>forgiveness instead of permission.</whisper>

The thing with voting at Apache, in respect to coding, is that it 
usually implies dissent. We take affirmative votes as to granting 
write access and as to releases, but day-to-day coding is subject 
to lazy consensus. This means a change is assumed to be kosher 
unless someone says otherwise. When someone does say otherwise, 
then we can resort to an actual product-change vote. 

In some Apache circles, voting on a product change is considered 
"crude". It's believed that we should be able to discuss these 
things politely and make graceful changes without the overhead of 
a formal [VOTE]. A consensus vote is a last resort should polite 
discussion fail.

I think in this case, we are actually taking a [POLL] to find out 
how people feel. In the end, someone will take responsibility for 
making the change. If we try and we like it, then whatever change 
is made sticks. But if we try it and we don't like it, then we'll 
have to change it until we do. 

I think using the [POLL] header to call attention to a plan is a 
good idea, but we might want to reserve [VOTE] for new committers, 
releases, and disputed product-changes. We should also make it 
clear that we are always interested in what ~everyone~ thinks, 
developers and committers alike.  

One subtle point is that Committers are obligated to indicate that 
we *may* veto an action as soon as possible. So sometimes we 
mention "-1" in the context of discussing a course of action. But 
that itself is not a veto, but the forewarning of a veto. At 
Apache, code only rules.

-Ted. 

(I'm not exactly sure myself what that least sentance means, but 
it shore sounds pretty =;)




--
To unsubscribe, e-mail:   <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
For additional commands, e-mail: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>

Re: [POLL] How to implement XHMTL support

[Eddie Bush <ek...@swbell.net>]

You're continually help us newcomers understand things better (at least, 
you're helping me understand things) - thanks Ted ;-)

Ted Husted wrote:

>The thing with voting at Apache, in respect to coding, is that it 
>usually implies dissent. We take affirmative votes as to granting 
>write access and as to releases, but day-to-day coding is subject 
>to lazy consensus. This means a change is assumed to be kosher 
>unless someone says otherwise. When someone does say otherwise, 
>then we can resort to an actual product-change vote. 
>
>In some Apache circles, voting on a product change is considered 
>"crude". It's believed that we should be able to discuss these 
>things politely and make graceful changes without the overhead of 
>a formal [VOTE]. A consensus vote is a last resort should polite 
>discussion fail.
>
>I think in this case, we are actually taking a [POLL] to find out 
>how people feel. In the end, someone will take responsibility for 
>making the change. If we try and we like it, then whatever change 
>is made sticks. But if we try it and we don't like it, then we'll 
>have to change it until we do. 
>
>I think using the [POLL] header to call attention to a plan is a 
>good idea, but we might want to reserve [VOTE] for new committers, 
>releases, and disputed product-changes. We should also make it 
>clear that we are always interested in what ~everyone~ thinks, 
>developers and committers alike.  
>
>One subtle point is that Committers are obligated to indicate that 
>we *may* veto an action as soon as possible. So sometimes we 
>mention "-1" in the context of discussing a course of action. But 
>that itself is not a veto, but the forewarning of a veto. At 
>Apache, code only rules.
>
>-Ted. 
>
>(I'm not exactly sure myself what that least sentance means, but 
>it shore sounds pretty =;)
>
-- 
Eddie Bush



--
To unsubscribe, e-mail:   <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
For additional commands, e-mail: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>