commons-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Greg Stein <>
Subject Re: [plea] get back to work
Date Wed, 24 Dec 2003 01:49:35 GMT
On Tue, Dec 23, 2003 at 11:01:44AM -0500, Henri Yandell wrote:
> On Tue, 23 Dec 2003, Phil Steitz wrote:
> > Greg Stein wrote:
> > <snip>
> > > How does J-C fit into this? What I see is a loosely knit group of
> > > developers each working on one or more components. There is definitely a
> > > feeling of community, but the codebases and the people working on them
> > > form discrete subgroups. As an easy example: the codec component really
> > > only has two committers on it. I'm not sure that constitutes a problem,
> > > but it also seems to indicate that the community != interested developers
> > > which means that those developers cannot necessarily do what they want
> > > (or believe is best) with the code that interests them.
> >
> > I disagree.  The "discrete subgroups" are very fluid and there is a lot of
> > interaction and cross-pollination among them.  Codec in fact has 8 people
> > listed as "committers."

It doesn't really matter was is listed. What is the actual truth is that
there are only two committers on the thing: ggregory and tobrian. The
others are happenstance.

> > I have never seen an example where a commons
> > developer (committer or not) is unable to "do what they want...with the
> > code that interests them" because of community fragmentation.

It isn't fragmentation. It is people asserting ownership over something
they are not involved with. Tim said, "I'd like to move this to A-C" and
people who are really not involved with the codebase are saying "no". One
of the two who are closest is thus denied what he believes is best for the

Now people might say, "but we *are* involved. we watch the commits, we
talk about them, etc etc, but we just don't commit ourselves." That
ability will not disappear by virtue of the fact that the person(s) who
*are* doing all the work feel it is best to move that work elsewhere. You
can still sign up for the commits and participate in the dev discussions.
It just happens to be somewhere better for the codebase.

[ all that said, note that this is for example purposes only. the other
  committer on code, ggregory, voted against moving, so tobrian dropped
  the suggestion; however, if the two of them *had* said "let's move", it
  sure looked like J-C was going to try and stop it ]

> > Sometimes
> > people disagree and some ideas are rejected by the community, but there is
> > nothing stopping any developer from getting involved in any commons
> > component.  There are also *lots* more people than the [codec] committers
> > who read and comment on [codec] posts.

This can happen anywhere in the ASF. That is the core of how the ASF

> I try to stay on top of all of the 'Children of Utils' components, which
> includes codec. I was surprised that I've only made the one commit to
> codec in its current cvs location.

Thus, my original post noting that the community != developers for (many?)
components in J-C. That would seem like it can lead to problems.

Note: I'm not asserting that A-C solves this. My point was focused around
(IMO) improper assertions of "ownership" (if you will) over components and
their destinies. The second point was that I feel that J-C isn't quite as
unified as some may believe, by virtue of the small dev subgroups.


Greg Stein,

To unsubscribe, e-mail:
For additional commands, e-mail:

View raw message