geronimo-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Henri Yandell <>
Subject Re: committer process
Date Tue, 16 Sep 2003 17:27:54 GMT

A few things to say, regarding the Jakarta process more than anything to
do with how Geronimo will run things.

Firstly, Greg listed 2 types of ways in which committers are voted. In
httpd it is privately on the PMC list, in Jakarta it is publically on the
dev list. This is done after asking the contributor in question if they're
interested in the Jakarta instances i have been involved in.

Greg however has not listed the complete Jakarta voting style. While
committers are voted in the public, based on their contributions and are
asked before-hand, PMC-persons are handled in the same way as ASF members:

Someone on the Jakarta PMC list nominates an active committer, a private
vote is taken and if that is successful then the committer in question is
asked if they are interested in joining the PMC. Some active committers
are not interested in such a thing as it implies responsibilities they do
not want to involve themselves in.

The current state of the Jakarta PMC is that we're now satisfied that
every Jakarta project has PMC involvement with at least 1 PMC person
actively on that project.

[hypothesizing] This gives us the ability to bootstrap the next growth in
which PMC people propose active committers from their particular projects

Greg's requirement below states that all active committers are a part of
the PMC, and the Jakarta PMC is working towards that. Active being a
matter of opinion though, so there will still be difference I imagine.

As to how Geronimo will work. I think that for a single project style,
like httpd, Greg's way will work well. For a larger conglomerate, I think
the two level of voting is more streamlined. The reality in Jakarta is that
despite the desire for centralised management, there is still a larger
level of autonomous behaviour required.

If you want Geronimo to be a large federation of smaller projects, I would
suggest the Jakarta way be considered. I suspect you'd prefer a httpd
style, tighter knit community on one mail list, so I would recommend
Greg's example from the httpd world.


On Tue, 16 Sep 2003, Ryan Ackley wrote:

> > The ASF requires that all active committers be part of the PMC. It is just
> > that simple. Say anything you want, but it won't change the facts.
> Greg, if this is the case, you need to add this to the documentation on the
> incubator pages. Thats what I was going by. You seem to know official ASF
> policy since you are the chairman. However, it would be nice if you get
> disseminate to the little people (put up documentation) when you get a
> chance so we don't have to wait for you to make condescending comments on a
> mailing list.
> If its ASF policy, why didn't you just say that last week when this whole
> conversation got started. sheesh!
> > In any case, what Jim Jagielski is saying that the ideal is that all
> > committers are on the PMC. Just because it is broken elsewhere
> Uh...everywhere. According to earlier posts, "almost all" committers are PMC
> members for httpd. We know that this isn't true for jakarta. A very large
> chunk of the other top-level project are jakarta spinoffs.
> > Corollary: the Jakarta PMC is broken. They know it, and they have spent
> > some time increasing the size of the PMC to include all active committers.
> Wow this is news to me. I am a Jakarta committer. I haven't been contacted
> or heard any rumors. Now that I have your attention Mr. Chairman, when am I
> going to be made a Jakarta PMC member?
> Ryan Ackley

View raw message