geronimo-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Ryan Ackley" <sack...@cfl.rr.com>
Subject Re: Geronimo PMC
Date Fri, 12 Sep 2003 18:33:48 GMT
Well said, it is more important to develop code than to worry about
bureaucratic crap...

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Jeremy Boynes" <jeremy@coredevelopers.net>
To: <geronimo-dev@incubator.apache.org>; <pmc@incubator.apache.org>
Sent: Friday, September 12, 2003 2:22 PM
Subject: Geronimo PMC


> The discussion on the process for nominating committers has highlighted
> confusion about the role played by the PMC for a project and I believe
> before we can make process on procedures for Geronimo this must be
> clarified. This may be stepping into a political and social minefield,
> but events over the last week have shown this is something that must be
> resolved.
>
> There appear to be two different approaches within the ASF to the role
> played by the PMC:
>
> Firstly, there is what, for want of a better name, can be called the
> httpd approach. With this structure, the PMC has a relatively large
> number of people comprising the active committers on the project.
> Technical decisions are made by the committers on the public development
> list, but procedural decisions (such as adding a new committer) are made
> in private on the pmc list.
>
> Secondly, and again for lack of a better name, there is the Jakarta
> approach. Here, the PMC is smaller and seems to deal mainly with
> organizational issues such as adding projects, ensuring CLAs are filed
> and co-ordination between sub-projects. Both technical and procedural
> decisions are made in public on the sub-project development lists and
> then passed to the Jakarta PMC where appropriate.
>
> I would speculate some of the confusion arises because many members of
> the Geronimo community are new to Apache and, being Java centric, are
> more used to the Jakarta approach, whereas the incubator PMC is more
> used to the httpd approach.
>
> My first question is whether this is a fair and accurate summary? If I
> am just confused, please just ignore the rest of this mail.
>
> The second one is whether the ASF as a whole has a formal preference for
> one of these two approaches, or has prior experience shown one to be
> "better" (with allowance that there probably as many opinions on that as
> there are community members)?
>
> The third question is whether either of these is the "right" solution
> for Geronimo, and if not, then we need to define an organization
> structure that meets the legal and philosophical requirements of ASF and
> the needs of the Geronimo community.
>
> The Jakarta sub-project concept seems to fit with the current status of
> Geronimo - it is not yet a project in its own right, but a sub-project
> of incubator. Given that, it seems to make sense to have the project
> operate in a similar manner, where the committers make the technical and
> procedural decisions and, where necessary or appropriate, pass the
> results to the PMC to execute.
>
> However, we still need to debate and define the management structure
> that will be put in place when Geronimo leaves the incubator. Either of
> the two approaches may be appropriate, or we may need a different
> variant capable of handling the legal requirements imposed by
> certification.
>
> This discussion should start now but we cannot place Geronimo on hold
> whilst it is resolved. There was very strong support in the vote on the
> committer process to "do it a standard way", and the way chosen was that
> of a Jakarta sub-project. Is it the right way, I think not - is it good
> enough for now, I believe so.
>
> --
> Jeremy
>


Mime
View raw message