Re: John Palmieri joining the release-team

["Murray Cumming" <murrayc murrayc com>]

> On 11/8/05, John (J5) Palmieri <johnp redhat com> wrote:
>
>> It all depends on what kind of tone we want to strike.  Java missing one
>> release might not be a big deal if they have shown commitment on
>> previous releases.  I think the delisting from stock markets might be a
>> good model.  It is pretty hard to get on, you need to follow rules and
>> regulations but once you are on you are given leeway to get your act
>> together once you fall behind.  For instance a tech company in the
>> server space that we all should know has been threatened in the past
>> with delisting because their stock fell bellow $1 a share but they
>> managed to bring it up and keep their name listed.  It happened again
>> and they couldn't bring it up so they are being delisted.
>>
>> The same stance should be taken with the Java Bindings or any bindings.
>> Give them a warning and drop them if they don't pull it together by the
>> next release.
>
> Makes a lot of sense.  So much so, that it seems it should have been
> obvious.  :)

Dropping a binding should be really extreme thing that should almost never
happen. We should do all we can to keep bindings on the schedule, because
the bindings release set make a (vague) promise that those bindings will
be well maintained in future.

We'd only want to drop a binding if it seemed like they would never get
back on schedule, because that would just be a false promise that made the
other bindings look bad.

I don't think there's any problem with the Java bindings.

Murray Cumming
murrayc murrayc com
www.murrayc.com
www.openismus.com