Eric,
Overall,
I think we have a very healthy project over here in MicroProfile. I
actually see these discussions to show that we are healthy. We're
discussing how to properly organize our project for the benefit of
everyone involved. I think these type of discussions should be
encouraged and not viewed as being "un-healthy".
Thanks,
Kevin
Just for clarity, I only
vetoed the nomination for Tom Evans, because his existing contributions
didn't seem worthy of full committer status. I intentionally did not
veto the other 2 nominations (yet) because I wanted to hear the rest of
the PMS members' thoughts.
I agree that Wayne's assessment that perhaps they want multiple projects
with different contributors might be on point. However I'm not sure
that represents a healthy project or that Microprofile *should* be split
up just for political reasons. To me a healthy project would not even
request it due to lack of trust.
Eric
+1 to "it looks like the process is working. IMHO, the
comments by the abstainers are sufficient to explain why the election
was problematic, and I stand behind Eric's veto."
Comments like
this bother me, as it suggests that the abstention is unrelated to the
actual fitness of the individual and more as a political play. The
context of the other comments, however, I'm going to assume that this
isn't the case.
If I read between
the lines, I believe that the actual problem is that at least some
committers don't trust that new committers will restrict themselves to
repositories in their area of expertise and they feel a need to have
finer grained control over write access.
Other
than that, it looks like the process is working. IMHO, the comments by
the abstainers are sufficient to explain why the election was
problematic, and I stand behind Eric's veto.
Wayne
