[slf4j-dev] Re: slf4j and log4j

[robert burrell donkin]

i wonder whether it's actually necessary to have any committers (in the
apache sense). i've been wondering whether we could learn from the
process that created SAX.

if the consensus is that we need votes and formalism now, i'd probably
look to extend the net a little wider. i'd be happy for any apache
committers with an interest to have a vote. (indeed, probably anyone
with relevant OSS experience and demonstrated interest.) 

one of the mistakes we made when JCL was created was that there were no
real application framework folks involved (at least in a positive
fashion). so, i'm keen to hear what niclas has to say. 

i've also been wondering whether (if this experiment looks like working)
whether we might be able to develop IBM's enterprise logging proposal
through this forum. 

- robert 

On Sun, 2005-05-01 at 19:26 +0200, Ceki Gülcü wrote:
> At 06:49 5/1/2005, Simon Kitching wrote:
> 
> >Actually, as SLF4J is just 4 simple core classes + 2 classes per
> >concrete logging library, there isn't much need for a large pool of
> >committers. I would say 3 people (to ensure project continuity) is as
> >many as SLF4J would ever need.
> >
> >The number of people who can *vote* on SLF4J design-related matters is a
> >different issue. I guess the committers for SLF4J are the ones that
> >decide the policy on that, but I would recommend that the policy be that
> >  * the committers on SLF4J
> >  * plus any committer on log4j
> >  * plus any committer on JCL
> >all be entitled to vote, and that voting follow standard ASF procedures.
> 
> How about just people who have demonstrated to have a clue and have shown 
> interest in participating? While the set of people who have a clue may be 
> large, when intersected with the set of people who have shown interest, the 
> set gets reduced to:
> 
>    Robert, Simon, Jake, Ceki, (Brian?)
> 
> 
> >Regards,
> >
> >Simon