Subject: Re: apache-style vetoes
From: Sam TH (sam@uchicago.edu)
Date: Thu Feb 08 2001 - 18:07:39 CST
On Thu, Feb 08, 2001 at 02:07:47PM -0800, Paul Rohr wrote:
> FYI. I just noticed the following bit in the middle of the libglade thread
> today.
>
> At 07:11 PM 2/8/01 +0100, Joaquin Cuenca Abela wrote:
> >Martin wrote:
> >> For clarification, the Apache voting system has a veto, where if one
> >> developer vetoes a change, that veto is final. To quote the apache
> >> page:
> >>
> >> "Changes to the code are proposed on the mailing list and usually
> >> voted on by active members -- three +1 (yes votes) and no -1 (no
> >> votes, or vetoes) are needed to commit a code change during a release
> >> cycle;"
>
> I didn't know this, and was glibly threatening to veto things when I thought
> I was just playfully expressing doubt or disagreement. My apologies. That
> was unwittingly rude. If I ever really do *veto* something, it'll be
> expressed via cvs commit, with a suitable explanation to this list.
>
> If anyone would still like to advocate the implementation of an Apache-like
> system, please make a concrete proposal here which summarizes how it works
> (with URLs), and why you feel it would be appropriate for our community.
>
> This snippet alone implies a very, very different system than what we've
> always done, but it's now quite clear to me that I don't know enough to
> intelligently comment on it.
The definitive description, of course, is the behavior of Apache
projects, and other projects that have adopted the system. However,
the system is described at:
http://httpd.apache.org/ABOUT_APACHE.html
under the heading The Apache Development Process.
Like I've said before, I don't think we need this. Apache and it's
related projects are much bigger than we are, in terms of directly
interested parties, people with significant financial interest in the
code, and number of developers. They've also been around lots longer.
It should be noted that the voting system has been adopted by projects
that don't use the code review process. That is, people vote on
issues, but not on patches.
I'm of the opinion that we're doing very well, and don't need to
change our development methodology. Voting on patches would
certainly be inappropriate, given the volume of code that some people
around here generate. :-) And I don't think there's enough
contention to require voting on issues as a matter of course. If we
have a serious dispute, thought will have to be given as to how to
resolve it. But I think we should cross that bridge when we come to
it.
sam th
sam@uchicago.edu
http://www.abisource.com/~sam/
GnuPG Key:
http://www.abisource.com/~sam/key
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b25 : Thu Feb 08 2001 - 18:06:33 CST