Return-Path: Delivered-To: apmail-jakarta-avalon-phoenix-dev-archive@apache.org Received: (qmail 61398 invoked from network); 3 Dec 2002 19:39:43 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO nagoya.betaversion.org) (192.18.49.131) by daedalus.apache.org with SMTP; 3 Dec 2002 19:39:43 -0000 Received: (qmail 11358 invoked by uid 97); 3 Dec 2002 19:40:47 -0000 Delivered-To: qmlist-jakarta-archive-avalon-phoenix-dev@jakarta.apache.org Received: (qmail 11291 invoked by uid 97); 3 Dec 2002 19:40:46 -0000 Mailing-List: contact avalon-dev-help@jakarta.apache.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Help: List-Post: List-Id: "Avalon Developers List" Reply-To: "Avalon Developers List" Delivered-To: mailing list avalon-dev@jakarta.apache.org Received: (qmail 11279 invoked by uid 98); 3 Dec 2002 19:40:46 -0000 X-Antivirus: nagoya (v4218 created Aug 14 2002) Message-ID: <3DED089C.3040608@apache.org> Date: Tue, 03 Dec 2002 20:40:12 +0100 From: Stephen McConnell User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; WinNT4.0; en-US; rv:1.0.0) Gecko/20020530 X-Accept-Language: en, en-us MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Avalon Developers List Subject: Re: Kick-starting the Charter process References: <000901c29afd$6c901320$2100a8c0@acsdom1.citius.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Spam-Rating: daedalus.apache.org 1.6.2 0/1000/N X-Spam-Rating: daedalus.apache.org 1.6.2 0/1000/N Berin Loritsch wrote: >At this location, you can see the current XML Project charter: >http://cvs.apache.org/viewcvs.cgi/xml-admin/charter.txt > >I propose that we take that charter and adapt it to ours since it >is easier to start from something already accepted ;P . > -1 From a clear an unambigouse process perspective its not a good example. Yes - its perhaps a starting point but al of the stuff to do with unanimouse decision making is a recepie for making the PMC totally disfunctional. > >If we like it, let's commit it to CVS so that we can track changes. >(I would do it, but I am behind a corporate firewall). > >Below is my first stab. Aside from writing the mission statement >(which needs to be updated and commented on), I added this phrase >to the PMC section: > >" It is also >possible for a project depending on Avalon to nominate a representative. >The representative of the client project still needs to be unanimously >approved by all PMC members, and a two-thirds majority vote of >committers. " > > This can be much more cleanly addressed by simply reducing word - not adding them. More notes below. >The only other work I did was changing all references from XML to >Avalon. > > >------------------------ avalon.apache.org ----------------------------- > >avalon.apache.org is a collaborative software development project >dedicated to providing robust, full-featured, commercial-quality, and >freely available component architecture. > "component and service architecture" - no just "component architecture" > This project is managed in >cooperation with various individuals worldwide (both independent and >company-affiliated experts), who use the Internet to communicate, plan, >and develop Avalon component software and related documentation. > >This charter briefly describes the mission, history, organization, and >processes of the project. > >MISSION >======= > >avalon.apache.org exists to promote the use of Avalon components. >Component Based Design is a proven practice that helps create systems >that are loosely coupled and easy to maintain. Component Based >Design requires a general framework, components, and containers to >function properly. > >avalon.apache.org defines the framework, the reference implementation >of the containers, the compliance testing suite, and a set of components >that can be used in third party projects. These components plug into each >other using standard APIs (formal, de facto, or proposed). The components >must be high performance, reliable, secure, and easy to use. The >components must be part of an underlying architectural orchestration that >will allow them to work together without major negotiations or breakage. > >We believe that the best way to define this Avalon architecture is by >having both individuals and corporations collaborate on the best possible >infrastructure, APIs, code, testing, and release cycles. Components must >be vendor neutral and usable as core components for all. > >In order to achieve a coherent architecture between avalon.apache.org >components and other components and applications, standards (formal or >de facto) will be used as much as possible for both protocols and >APIs. We will also allow the innovation of new protocols, APIs, and >components in order to seed new concepts not yet defined by standards. > > Sounds like a mission for commons - needs to be replaced with a concrete mission that defines Avalon objectives. >HISTORY >======= > >This project was established under the direction of the newly-formed >Apache Software Foundation in November 2002 to facilitate joint >open-source development. > > History should be more complete - including reference to Jakarta Avalon. >THE PROJECT MANAGEMENT COMMITTEE >================================ >The avalon.apache.org project is managed by a small, core group of >contributors known as the Project Management Committee [PMC]. The PMC >must have at least one officer from the Apache Board, who will be the >Chairperson and report to the Apache Board. See >http://www.apache.org/foundation/bylaws.html for reference. > > I would change the first sentence to: The avalon.apache.org project is managed by a elected group known as the Project Management Committee [PMC]. >The PMC has the following responsibilities: > >1) Accepting new subproject proposals, formally submitting these > proposals for committer vote, and creating the subproject (see > SUBPROJECTS below). > Don;t like this notion of SUBPROJECT scope - the issue is not about accepting a new subproject or not - its about properly managing the project. Breaking out subprojects isn't management. >2) Facilitating code or other donations by individuals or companies. >3) Resolving license issues and other legal issues. >4) Approving new committers. >5) Ensuring that administrative and infrastructure work is completed. > Point 5 is infussiently defined and more an action item - should be reworded to a responsibility. Is probably redundant anyway with respect to point 8. >6) Facilitating relationships among projects. >7) Facilitating relationships between avalon.apache.org and the external > world. >8) Overseeing avalon.apache.org to ensure that the mission defined in > this document is being fulfilled. >9) Resolving conflicts within the project. > >To become a member of the PMC, an individual must be nominated by a >contributor, unanimously approved by all PMC members, and approved by >a two-thirds majority of committers. In most cases, developers will >have actively contributed to development for at least six months >before being considered for membership on the PMC. > Disagree. If a single PMC member can veto the introduction of another member or any process - we have a lame duck PMC. This whiole notion of "you must be a committer" - "in most cases" - etc. is unnecessary noise - instead this needs to be written with the objective of laying down the laws about PMC evolution that gaurantee member representation. Don;t have a replacement at the moment but coiinsider this as a big -1 on current wording here. >It is also >possible for a project depending on Avalon to nominate a representative. >The representative of the client project still needs to be unanimously >approved by all PMC members, > No, no no - any criteria for a unanimouse action is just plain off-the-planet in terms of procedure - it would dramatically change my perception of who I would consider for PMC membership - and for all the wrong reasons. >and a two-thirds majority vote of >committers. The goal is to keep the membership of the core group >at four to seven people in order to minimize the bureaucratic overhead >required to keep the project operational. > > Size qualification is unnecessry - this should be abiout the process for change - which should be up to the community based on the procedures. This sort of noice should be dropped from the charter. >In the unlikely event that a member of the PMC becomes disruptive to >the process or ceases to contribute for an extended period, said >member may be removed by unanimous vote of remaining PMC members. > > Same issue here - these sort of things should not be qualified by "disruptive" - maybe soneone is being disruptive because the PMC isn't doing what needs to be done - whatever - the policies should not precondition a procedure with adjectives like this - and secondly - the ugly "unanimous" word appears again - in any sort of body that is anywhaere near representative - things like thins are at worst case a 2/3 majority - as are things like changing the charter. >The PMC is responsible for maintaining and updating this >charter. Development must follow the process outlined below, so any >change to the development process necessitates a change to the >charter. Changes must be unanimously approved by all members of the >PMC. > 2/3 - not unanimous. >A contributor may challenge a change to the charter at any time >and ask for a vote of all committers, in which case a two-thirds >majority must approve the change. > Disagree. A contribnuter should intervi8ne though participation as an elected member. This should be dropped. > >SUBPROJECTS >=========== >avalon.apache.org is comprised of subprojects; a subproject is a >component whose scope is well defined. Each subproject has its own >set of developers. > >A new subproject proposal is submitted to the PMC, accepted by majority >committer vote, and then subject to final approval by the PMC. > > Not relevant to Avalon. We should not be subproject driven. >COMMITTERS >========== > >Each subproject has a set of committers. > -1 A recepie for fragmentation. >Committers are developers who >have read/write access to the source code repository. New committers >are added when a developer is nominated by a committer and approved by >at least 50 percent of the committers for that subproject with no >opposing votes. In most cases, new committers will already be >participating in the development process by submitting suggestions >and/or fixes via the bug report page or mailing lists. > > Probably needs to be rewritten from our perspective of a single committer community. >CONTRIBUTORS >============ >Like all Apache projects, the Avalon project is a meritocracy -- the more >work you do, the more you are allowed to do. Occasional contributors >will be able to report bugs and participate in the mailing lists. > >Specific changes to a product proposed for discussion or voting on the >appropriate development mailing list should be presented in the form >of input to the patch command. When sent to the mailing list, the >message should contain a subject beginning with [PATCH] and including >a distinctive one-line summary that corresponds to the action item for >that patch. > >Use the diff -u command from the original software file(s) to the >modified software file(s) to create the patch. Patches should be >submitted against the latest CVS versions of the software to avoid >conflicts and ensure that you are not submitting a patch for a problem >that has already been resolved. > >Developers who make regular and substantial contributions may become >committers as described above. > > Don't think this contributors text is needed because iut does not seem to impact the procedures. >INFRASTRUCTURE >============== >The avalon.apache.org project site must provide the following: > >Bug Database -- This is a system for tracking bugs and feature >requests. > >Subproject Source Repositories -- These are several CVS repositories >containing both the source code and documentation for the >subprojects. Each subproject will have a set of committers to its >repository. > > -1 Recepie for fragmentation. >Website -- An avalon.apache.org website will contain information about >the avalon.apache.org project, including documentation, downloads of >releases, and this charter. Each subproject will have its own website >with subproject information. > >PMC Mailing List -- This list is for PMC business requiring >confidentiality, particularly when an individual or company requests >discretion. All other PMC business should be done on the general >mailing list. > >General Mailing List -- This mailing list is open to the public. It is >intended for discussions that cross subprojects. > > Would change the above to "Mailing Lists" (plural) and not go into details here. >Subproject Mailing Lists -- Each subproject should have a devoted mailing >list. Many subprojects may wish to have both user and development >lists. The individual subprojects may decide on the exact structure of >their mailing lists. > > -1 Recipe for fragmentation. >LICENSING >========= >All contributions to the avalon.apache.org project adhere to the "ASF >Source Code License." All further contributions must be made under the >same terms. All contributions must contain the following copyright >notice: [This changes now that the license is available] > >Copyright (c) {date} {name of contributor} and others. All rights >reserved. This program and the accompanying materials are made >available under the terms of the ASF Source Code License, as found in >the file ASF.code.license.html that is included in this distribution. > Should be revised to include the full ASF license in the source header. > >THE DEVELOPMENT PROCESS >======================= >The development process is intentionally lightweight; like other >Apache projects, the committers decide which changes may be committed >to the repository. Three +1 ('yes' votes) with no -1 ('no' votes or >vetoes) are needed to approve a code change. For efficiency, some code >changes from some contributors (e.g. feature additions, bug fixes) may >be approved in advance, in which case they may be committed first and >changed as needed, with conflicts resolved by majority vote of the >committers. > There are much stronger guidelines that this comming out of the incubator project - the above is insufficient. > >SUBPROJECT REQUIREMENTS >======================= >Each subproject must have a set of requirements as well as an >up-to-date release plan and design document on its dedicated web page. > >It must be possible for each subproject to plug into the Gump nightly >build system (see http://jakarta.apache.org/builds/gump). It is >recommended that each subproject have a smoke-test system that works at >least as a basic integration test. > Should be replaced with Avalon project requierements concerning actions plans, release plans, goals, etc. This could be broken down into product plans - but subprojects. > >RELATIONSHIP TO OTHER APACHE PROJECTS >===================================== >The avalon.apache.org project should work closely with other Apache >projects, such as Jakarta and the Apache Server, to avoid redundancy >and achieve a coherent architecture among avalon.apache.org and these >projects. > > > This is ok. Cheers, Steve. > >-- >To unsubscribe, e-mail: >For additional commands, e-mail: > > > > > -- Stephen J. McConnell OSM SARL digital products for a global economy mailto:mcconnell@osm.net http://www.osm.net -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: For additional commands, e-mail: