apr-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Greg Stein <gst...@lyra.org>
Subject Re: APR "charter" (was: El-Kabong -- HTML Parser)
Date Tue, 27 Aug 2002 19:57:56 GMT
On Tue, Aug 27, 2002 at 03:32:01PM -0400, Ryan Bloom wrote:
> > > > > We are a portability project, which is
> > > > > all the library was when I wrote it, and all I wish the project to
be.  If
> > 
> > That's what *you* wanted Ryan. Tough luck, but there are more of us. And we
> > have wanted it to be more, and it *is* more.
> That's right, I opened the project up to other people, which doesn't mean
> that I no longer get a say.

Don't mischaracterize me. I never said you couldn't have a say :-(

> I am saying that I believe we have violated
> our charter, and I wish to correct that problem.
> We created a mission statement as a PMC a long time ago (it was removed
> from the STATUS file some time ago, but here are the three options that
> were originally in the STATUS file:
>  The Apache Portable Run-time mission is to provide a free library
>  of C data structures and routines, forming a system portability
>  layer to as many operating systems as possible, including Unices,
>  MS Win32, BeOS and OS/2.
>         Votes: +1: OtherBill, Karl, Fred, Greg
> Notice the final one is word for word what is on the web site.  As a TEAM
> we agreed to that as our mission statement.  You can't just change the
> mission statement because you want to.  If you want to change that
> statement, then bring it to the PMC, and let us discuss it.

Our mission is defined by our actions. That statement is a static phrase,
created at a point in time two years ago. It has not kept up with where we
want to go with the APR project. So hell ya, it needs to be updated.

But I do *not* see it as a limitation on what we choose to do. It is a
*description*, not a *restriction*. We chose it as a way to describe what we
were doing two years ago (writing APR; APRUTIL wasn't envisioned). But that
is it: a description.

> As things stand right now, however, apr-serf and apr-html are in violation
> of the mission statement, as decided by the PMC.  Therefore, I am
> suggesting that all discussion of these projects be tabled until we either
> uphold our current mission, or create a new one.

I would rephrase that as "update the mission statement." Our mission is
defined by our actions. There is no need to table anything.

> > Of course we can. Our charter allows us to define our scope. I see that as
> > focusing on "portable" libraries.
> Which, from the votes above, I would consider to be a change from
> your previous position.  Which is fine, but you don't get to decide on the
> mission statement for the whole project.

Sure. That was a vote on how to describe the APR project at *that point in
time*. It is unrelated to describing our mission today. But it is merely a

And if two years ago, you had asked, "should we be about portable libraries,
or just libraries that engender portability?" I probably would have said the
former. But I dunno. It would be interesting to scour the email lists, as I
seem to recall that came up. But hey... if I was only for engendering
portability, then yes: I've changed my mind. So sue me :-)

Seriously... it is for *visitors* to read. Not us. That phrase is used to
help people figure out what the APR Project is all about.

As a group, we define what to do. What code to write. What code to accept.
Since that occurs as a group, then that also means we are implicitly
altering our charter.mission/ Each decision moves us in a slightly different
direction. If at each point, we had refused to create apr-util or apr-serf,
then I'd agree that we're only about engendering portability. But that isn't
the case. We decided to expand the scope into portable [using] libraries.


Greg Stein, http://www.lyra.org/

View raw message