forrest-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Nicola Ken Barozzi <nicola...@apache.org>
Subject Re: [Proposal] Forrest graduation from Xml.Apache
Date Wed, 28 Apr 2004 07:41:20 GMT
David Crossley wrote:

> Dave Brondsema wrote:
> 
>>Quoting Nicola Ken Barozzi> 
>>
>>>WDOT?
>>
>>What are the advantages & disadvantages?
> 
> Well, let us all try to list them. Here are some ...
> 
> Pro
> ---
> * Better visibility.
> 
> * Stable and easily recognised URL forrest.apache.org
> 
> * Forrest PMC attends to our own community, rather than via
> some other PMC .
> 
> * Indicates that we are wider than just xml.
> 
> Con
> ---
> * Committees and paperwork. :-)

Well, AFAIK the only paperwork the trimestral report for the board.

> * Need to spend some effort to define our own Charter and Guidelines.
> This could be turned into a Pro because it gives our community
> more guidance.
> 
> * Need to prepare our own periodic reports to the Board.
> Anyway, we need to do that now via the Xml PMC.
> 
> * Need to define the composition of the PMC. For example, at Cocoon
> the PMC is the subset of all committers who want to be there.
> A PMC can appear to the rest of the community to be a clique
> (a select group) because the discussions are not public. This is
> erroneous because the only things that are talked about are the
> nasty legal ramifications of certain included external software.

I would like to try and bring back the original notion of the PMC, where 
all members are the one that care for the project in the long term, that 
can have binding votes and that represent the project.

The use of "simple" committers would be similar to what we do now for 
Cocoon committers: IOW they are invited to collaborate or fix bugs if 
they want, but don't have binding votes. IT could be used, say, to give 
access to the codebase to do some specific work on a part from someone 
that is not so involved. He could become a mamber later on, but not 
necessarily. This is what on the SVN project are called "partial 
committers".

http://svn.collab.net/viewcvs/svn/trunk/HACKING?rev=9432&view=markup
http://svn.collab.net/viewcvs/svn/trunk/COMMITTERS?rev=9258&view=markup
http://svn.collab.net/viewcvs/svn/trunk/notes/contrib-committer.tmpl?rev=7089&view=markup
http://www.contactor.se/~dast/svn/archive-2003-09/1574.shtml


> Other
> -----
> * Would we still retain some affiliation with the Apache XML
> umbrella project?

Why not? :-)

> I tried to look around for a general definition of the Roles
> and Responsibilities of a PMC, but not much luck. Even these
> are not very helpful:
> http://incubator.apache.org/learn/glossary.html#PMC
> http://www.apache.org/foundation/roles.html#pmc
> Perhaps Nicola Ken can point to more.



>>My first concern is that it seems we only have a handful of active developers at
>>a time.  Moving to a top-level project would probably give us more visibility
>>and could put too much pressure on us for features/fixes (especially during
>>times when we committers are busy with non-forrest things).
> 
> Ah, an interesting point. More visibility brings more participants.
> On those occasions when the few committers cannot apply the
> contributions (patches or ideas) then those things remain undone.
> Perhaps one of those new participants will get itchy and start
> contributing patches and otherwise indicating their commitment
> to Forrest. We notice that and invite them to become committers.

+1

-- 
Nicola Ken Barozzi                   nicolaken@apache.org
             - verba volant, scripta manent -
    (discussions get forgotten, just code remains)
---------------------------------------------------------------------


Mime
View raw message