commons-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Costin Manolache <>
Subject Re: moving to a top-level project (was: [Ant nudge STATUS] Betterthan we thought...)
Date Wed, 30 Oct 2002 01:09:20 GMT
Geir Magnusson Jr. wrote:

>>> Great.  Perfect description.  Not disputing the general sentiment (I
>>> still think it's moving deck chairs around if you move every committer
>>> into the PMC).
>> I think it's more about a consistent naming and organization with the
>> rest of apache ( and the httpd project where all things started ).
> Ok - that's fine.  But note that httpd and jakarta are different (for what 
> know of httpd...).  I don't think Jakarta is all bad, and think that
> changes should be made to improve things.


Having a consistent naming and structure as a starting point can't hurt.

>> It is also a good opportunity to improve few things:
>> - find who's tracking what component.
> That would be good, but don't we know that from the status files ?

We know who's commiting - or did. And we have no mechanism to 
track sandbox - since most of them have 1-2 committers only.

>> - better tracking of who's active ( if we use 'active committer' def. )
> How?  Once on the PMC, your are on, right?

My 'active committer' would mean that once you stop beeing active 
you are supposed to remove yourself from the list.
( and add yourself back when you return )

>> - a way to better pass the message and get people involved in the
>> monitoring activity
> I don't see how a new title and mail list will change anything.  If we
> have
> to start changing the values of the community, we can do it directly.  If
> there are things we have to change, it's our responsibility as committers
> to do it.

different issues - the title is to make things more uniform with 
httpd/apr/etc and get closer to the legal protection.

The other issue is increasing awareness and having more active involvement
in the management of the project.

I'm not sugesting automatic committer/SPMC conversion. If some committer
wants to participate in the SPMC ( which is more of a title, you're right )
he'll have to volunteer at least for monitoring few components ( and sandbox 
components ).

> Ok - why not just make the file then?  I am sure that every active
> committer will step up to do this.
> The thing that we do get out of this is a formal accountability to the ASF
> -
> but it strikes me as strange that we take all (or most) committers,  
> them to be the PMC, and all of a sudden accountability happens.  Do you
> see what I mean?

Well, I think we _are_ accountable already - at least for jakarta-commons 
proper, and many committers are acting as a PMC. Do you see what I mean ?

Again - I'm not sugesting taking all committers and just define them as 
I'm sugesting creating a SPMC that will be open to all active committers
who want the title or are willing to help with this task ( monitoring ). 
Most of us are indeed tracking few components.

> Seems like we have a problem if our committers aren't responsible and
> willing to be held accountable.

I think we all agree this is not the case. Except that outside j-c
there is a perception that if you are not in a PMC or you don't have
some PMC to read each code commit - you're not accountable ( or protected 
legally or whatever ).

>> We can create some rules so that any committer can join the SPMC by
>> volunteering for some components and participating in some sort
>> of load distribution, and use this as a way to pass information.
> What information?  Why not the usual list?  We wouldn't want this to be
> closed, would we?

I meant pass the information on the load distribution. When you decide 
you want to be a SPMC member, you volunteer for some tasks - and this
way we can synchronize and spread the load. 

>> Regarding 'separating from jakarta' - I do think that j-c is in a way
>> the 'core' of jakarta ( I don't know any other jakarta sub-project
>> to bring so many people together ).
> Bingo. +1.  Exactly.  That was the intent, and that is what we achieved. 
> To break it up or move it  in the name of 'community' means someone is
> missing the point (not you, Costin)

The problem is that quite a few people already expressed the idea of 
moving pieces of the code ( and this will affect the community ).

>> But I wouldn't mind opening it up to people - we already
>> have few great committers from xml working on j-c, and I think it would
>> be great to expand this.
> Fine - our hurdles for becoming a committer aren't very high.  Do we have
> a
> problem where XML people aren't being allowed to contribute?  I mean, if
> someone showed up with patches or new code, I think there is enough mixing
> of the communities that the person would be granted committer status, just
> like we automatically let in committers from other Jakarta projects,
> right?

I know. We know. It would be nice for them to know that too :-)
And right now I don't think this is well-known in

>> AFAIK HTTPD PMC includes every committer.
> I don't think so - I asked.  It doesn't include every committer, and those
> that are a part of it are elected by the existing PMC based on 'merit'.
> I haven't had time to ask for clarification.

Probably we asked different persons. 

My understanding is that the diff is insignifiant.

As you see, I don't mind a bigger diff - as long as some objective means
are used. I think 'active and interested and willing to do the chores' is
a good criteria.

> Well - don't the active committers of each jakarta subproject *already* do
> the code reviews and monitoring and decisions?  What else are they here
> for?

I suppose that's not a question for me :-)
I think most jakarta people know the answer as well.

> I somewhat resent the idea that Jakarta PMC is a popularity contest.  (And
> not because I'm on it...)

> Every person that I have voted for on the PMC is, in my opinion, someone 
> understands Jakarta,  has a clear view supportive of Apache goals, has
> contributed to one or more subprojects in a significant way, and is active
> in the community.  What other definition of merit would one want?

I would add: and has gained the trust of a significant number of committers.

I'm pretty sure you got a lot of votes from people who use JSPs ( or
at least some ).

>> The problem is that we call things differently, and this de-facto
>> 'delegation' that happened since the beginning of jakarta is now
>> considered a problem.
> I understand that there are legal issues that must be addressed, but I
> can't believe that such a lively community, with both diversity and
> strength in the ASF licensed code bases, could have happened as a series
> of one-offs attaching to the ASF as 'top level projects'.
> If there are problems, lets solve them.  Lets not destroy Jakarta in doing
> so.


>> And I think trust has nothing to do with what you work on or what
>> technical opinions you have ( including 'hot' issues like JSP/Velocity).
>> I think I had technical disagreements with almost everyone in jakarta.
> And I don't think that JSP vs Velocity is a hot issue anymore.  The answer
> is clear :-)

Well - what's very clear is that we can work on common things even if
we have different taste for the templating language ( and many other
things ). 


To unsubscribe, e-mail:   <>
For additional commands, e-mail: <>

View raw message