Re: HERESY: *ONE* mailing list

On Thu, 27 Jul 2000, Tim Bunce wrote:

> > > > (Guidelines @ http://dev.apache.org/guidelines.html)
> > > 
> > > It makes interesting reading. Can anyone here with experience on the
> > > 'inside' of the Apache process comment on it's effectiveness?
> > 
> > The document is sorta outdadted, but on the rough lines it's close
> > enough. I think that it works very well. But it's on much smaller
> > and much more targeted project than Perl6. While it's still a busy
> > mailinglist it's not more than it's possibly to follow everything
> > and there is usually not more than a handful (very) active
> > committers at any given time.
> > 
> > We would still need some subgroups to give more people a chance of
> > being involved and keep theirsanity at the same time as Dan keeps
> > mentioning.
> 
> I think the key point was in relation to conflict resolution prodecures.
> Goy any observations of how that's worked in practice?

From what I see it works better than it used to on p5p.

I think it's mostly because they have more of an "okay, that's what
the vote/majority/consensus told us or that was the only
implementation we got and it's better than what we had before - so
get over it and move on" attitude.

Fewer people. And fewer complex choices in the project (there is
plenty of hard choices in the apache project, but it's still "only"
a webserver and not something as big and flexible as a programming
language).

Thinking about it, the voting/veto system and the thing with giving
authority to members/committers are probably a significant part of
what gives the attitude for "okay, it's decided. stop beating the
horse, it's dead. so let's move on."

okay, I'm repeating myself now. Time to sleep. :)


 - ask

-- 
ask bjoern hansen - <http://www.netcetera.dk/~ask/>
more than 70M impressions per day, <http://valueclick.com>