Re: cvs commit: avalon-phoenix/src/java/org/apache/avalon/phoenix/frontends CLISetup.java

This is a reply in part to Leo's email and to the comments from Sefano 
on the same subject:

You may be wondering why I issue a veto against the modifications 
committed by Peter Donald to the Phoenix code base.  I would line to 
take this opportunity to express those reasons in more detail, and 
invite Peter Donald or any other member of the Avalon community to 
present counter arguments. 

 1. I am opposed to the introduction of an external
    dependency within Avalon code when a perfectly valid
    solution exists within ASF and published under the ASL.

 2. I am opposed to the modification of the Phoenix code
    base when the modification is directly in contravention
    of an established concensus to migrate to Commons where
    possible (and in particular in this case the Commons CLI
    application).

Peter Donald is free to respond to the veto as he sees fit.  Should 
Peter Donald ignore the veto then I would request action from the Avalon 
PMC to address the matter should that situation arise. I think it is 
appropriate the Peter Donald revert the changes that he made following 
which he is welcome to make a proposal to the community concerning the 
maintenance of the Excalibur CLI API (or derived work).  This difference 
here is that it is the responsibility of Peter Donald to make that 
proposal and present a sufficiently compelling case to this community 
supporting his view. Should Peter Donald prepare such a proposal, I 
remain hopeful that he will address the specific issues I've raised 
above. I do think that the action taken by Peter Donald with respect to 
the modifications to Phoenix without any prior community consultation 
are inappropriate but I recognize that these actions are within the 
scope of the privileges granted to him by the Avalon PMC within the 
established policies and procedures.  As such I feel obliged to address 
this issue via the veto mechanism - a mechanism available to me in 
accordance with the same policy and procedures.

Cheers, Steve.



Leo Simons wrote:

> Steve, vetoes are _not_ how we want to work things out. This is *not* 
> productive (see my earlier mail about my view of productivity). Please 
> reconsider throwing more annoying vetoes into the party about stuff 
> which has not been aptly discussed.
>
> Here's how development works: we interpret were we're moving as a 
> project and what we need as a project, and act based on that. If we're 
> not sure everyone agrees with those acts, we draft a proposal before 
> committing stuff. When we are, we just commit, and things are subject 
> to lazy consensus.
>
> If we shouldn't have been sure because there isn't in fact a 
> consensus, the thing to do is to bring the actions and commits up for 
> discussion. *Not* just throw a veto out without discussion. Vetoes 
> make it more difficult to build consensus, and consensus is what we like.
>
> Why don't you retract your veto, take a look at Eung-ju's patch, 
> rework it to be fully compliant with the existing phoenix cli options, 
> and propose the modified patch as a replacement. Everybody happy.
>
> vetoes -- bleh.
>
> - Leo
>
> Stephen McConnell wrote:
>
>>
>> -1 (veto)
>>
>>> donaldp     2003/03/12 05:01:38
>>>
>>>  Modified:    .        build.xml
>>>               src/java/org/apache/avalon/phoenix/frontends 
>>> CLISetup.java
>>>  Removed:     lib/container excalibur-cli-1.0.jar
>>>  Log:
>>>  Remove away from excalibur-cli which has been axed.
>>
>
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected]
> For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]
>
>
>

-- 

Stephen J. McConnell
mailto:[email protected]
http://www.osm.net