Return-Path: Mailing-List: contact community-help@apache.org; run by ezmlm Delivered-To: mailing list community@apache.org Received: (qmail 65265 invoked from network); 30 Oct 2002 17:24:53 -0000 Received: from ns1.wow.lk (HELO mail.wow.lk) (202.124.160.2) by daedalus.apache.org with SMTP; 30 Oct 2002 17:24:53 -0000 Received: from lankabook2 ([202.124.170.23]) by mail.wow.lk (InterMail vK.4.03.04.00 201-232-130 license b6e8ccbc82eedafc1172e92f3ffd8431) with SMTP id <20021030171647.XGJF3660.mail@lankabook2> for ; Wed, 30 Oct 2002 23:16:47 +0600 Message-ID: <01f301c28039$0654ff00$d000a8c0@lankabook2> From: "Sanjiva Weerawarana" To: References: <3DBFDEA8.2000307@apache.org> Subject: Re: [important proposal] Cocoon as official Apache project Date: Wed, 30 Oct 2002 23:23:12 +0600 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4133.2400 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400 X-Spam-Rating: daedalus.apache.org 1.6.2 0/1000/N Given the revelation of lack of legal cover for non-PMC committers I'm all for making every codebase a separate PMC and allowing everyone committer to be a PMCer. So, +1. Sanjiva. ----- Original Message ----- From: "Stefano Mazzocchi" To: "Apache Cocoon" Cc: Sent: Wednesday, October 30, 2002 7:29 PM Subject: [important proposal] Cocoon as official Apache project > Ladies and gentlemen, > > it is with *great* pleasure that I'm finally feel confident enough to > ask you about something that is been in the back of my mind for more > than a year now. > > The proposal of making cocoon an official top-level Apache project. > > - o - > > Before I state the proposal and its implications, allow me to introduce > the context. > > Currently, Cocoon is not officially considered a 'project' under the ASF > bylaws. Cocoon is, in fact, part of the Apache XML Project just like > Xalan Xerces Fop Batik and the others. > > The ASF was designed round the concept of having one big legal umbrella > (the foundation) and several focused development communities (the projects). > > The original idea was, in fact, modeled after how the Apache Group > managed the Apache HTTPD project. > > Unfortunately, the ASF members thought that the same model could well > apply to projects which did not release software directly (unlike HTTPD > did) and decided to use the same model for jakarta and xml (which don't > release software directly, but add another level of indirection with > subprojects). > > The concept and the term "subproject" was, in fact, invented to separate > the development community from the container. > > Over the years, it became clear that project containment yields several > drawbacks: > > 1) container PMCs don't do anything since they are too detached from > the actual code (it's impossible they know all about all the code hosted > by the single containers!) > > 2) the subproject committers never have a way to interact directly > with the foundation, thus they perceive it as a distant and bureaucratic > thing > > 3) the ASF doesn't have proper legal oversight on the code contained > in all sub-projects > > 4) the trend of sub-projecting created sub-containers (avalon and > turbine, for example), thus making all this even worse. > > 5) the creation of sub-brands and the confusion this created. Example: > is Apache Tomcat? or Jakarta Tomcat? or Apache Jakarta Tomcat? > > Over the last 18 months, several members tried to convince the ASF board > that this situation was potentially very dangerous since, in fact, the > container projects started to behave more and more as sub-foundations, > but without the proper legal understanding. This situation was > potentially inflammable in the case of a legal action against a > committer since the foundation might not have been able to properly > legally shield that committer since it operated outside the bylaws and > without proper PMC oversight. > > Over the same period, several very influential members and board > officials were against this notion, stating that it was just a human > problem with the people elected on the PMC and *not* a problem in the > design of the foundation. > > After a few new PMC elections, and after finally having a jakarta/xml > member elected on the board (Sam Ruby), things are finally starting to > change. > > The ASF board agrees on an open policy on the creation of new top-level > Apache projects in the spirit of HTTPD: that is 'one PMC one codebase'. > > So, in the light of this, I would like to hear your comments on the idea > of moving out of xml.apache.org into our own project. > > - o - > > Before you start asking a bunch of questions, let me answer a few of > them that I might consider FAQs. > > 1) what are the contract changes that the proposal implies? [note, all > these are not carved in stone, but just here to give you an idea] > > Cocoon will be moved on cocoon.apache.org, all pages on xml.apache.org > redirected. > > The cocoon-*@xml.apache.org mail lists will be moved to > {1}@cocoon.apache.org. > > The xml-cocoon2 module will be renamed 'cocoon'. The xml-cocoon1 module > moved into hybernation state and stored for historical reasons only. > > NOTE: cocoon namespaces all start with http://apache.org/cocoon/ so no > need to change anything there. [I planned this in advance at least two > years ago, so that's why the namespace was already clean] > > 2) what does it mean for the developers? > > An official Cocoon project will have an official PMC which is what is > legally reponsible for the code and reports directly to the board. The > PMC officer becomes a vice-president of the ASF. > > In order to avoid stupid PMC elections, I'll be in favor of having the > PMC composed by *all* committers that ask to be part of it. This to > imply that committers and legal protector share the same duties and > priviledges. > > In short, it means that if any of us screws legally, the foundation will > protect us. Today, this is not the case. > > 3) what does it mean for Cocoon? > > Being a project allows us to host several different incubation-stage > efforts underneath. Cocoblog, wyona, forrest, cocoon-related IDE plugins > could be possible additions. Of course, with the idea of promoting them > as top-level projects when they are successful from a community perspective. > > Also, it means that we could have our own machine running the entire > cocoon.apache.org web site (that means: finally having Cocoon serving > its own pages!) > > Last but not least, it will give much more visibility to Cocoon since it > will be visible directly from www.apache.org > > 4) what are the drawbacks? > > moving stuff around is always annoying, but I think this is the only > major drawback. > > 5) isn't this unfair against the other sub-projects that remain > contained, therefore with less visibility? > > I don't know. Here I'm just stating the intention to move Cocoon to > top-level and I know the ASF board is very open to projects willing to > move out of their containers. > > But the ASF will *NOT* force projects to take this action. If other > communities feel they should deserve top-level projects, they should > make a proposal like this and ask the board instead of complaining with > us that we do it. > > 6) isn't a cocoon-related project too specific? wouldn't it be better to > have something like 'publishing.apache.org' and host all > publishing-related stuff there? > > No, it would be a smaller container, but still a container where the PMC > and the committers are not the same entity. > > HTTPD is a project about a modular HTTP server written in C, it's not a > container for all HTTP-related server technology, nor it would be of any > help if it became one. > > I think the ASF should stop forcing project to remain in containers but > simply allow them to choose to step up. > > Cocoon.apache.org will be the community of people around Cocoon and will > host, develop and distribute cocoon and cocoon-related software. And the > PMC will be directly supervising because it will be composed by all > committers of all cvs modules it will host. > > Also, stuff like Cocoon is very hard to make it fit into a single category. > > > 7) how do we move this further? > > First thing to do is to have a formal votation. All committers should > express their vote on this, right here: > > [ ] +1 I think it's a good idea > [ ] 0 I really don't care. > [ ] -1, I don't think it's a good idea. > > Please, vote clearly so that it's easy to make good summaries. If you > vote -1, please state your reasoning and propose a creative solution for > the problems this proposal tries to address. > > After the votation we'll see what to do. > > Thanks. > > -- > Stefano Mazzocchi > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: community-unsubscribe@apache.org > For additional commands, e-mail: community-help@apache.org > >