www-community mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Greg Stein <gst...@lyra.org>
Subject Re: [discussion] Jakarta PMC bylaws change
Date Mon, 04 Nov 2002 19:04:46 GMT
On Mon, Nov 04, 2002 at 06:51:04PM +0100, Dirk-Willem van Gulik wrote:
> Now if this would be all - no worries. However I personally think that the
> transition from that one HTTP crowd to one for HTTP, one for APR, etc, etc
> was already showing that something is a bit amiss in the scaling; even
> though the group of peopple is nearly overlapping; long term goal, feature
> creep in APR, versioning issues between APR/HTTP and even getting release
> notes out with some sort of coordination with php/perl treading-aint-work
> warnings, required a fair amount of noise in order to get the coordination
> they required.
> I cannot help to think that a much smaller group of people across those
> projects whould have done better than the current cabal keeping things on
> track simply by being a smaller focal point who know that they cannot
> dodge the issue.

I don't think smaller would have done it. For these specific cases, I think
the issue is with volunteerism. If somebody doesn't volunteer, then it
doesn't get done. Putting somebody into a small PMC does not increase the
amount of volunteered effort.

It's possible to address each of the items you raise, but that isn't quite
relevant. We're talking about the meta-issue: small or large?

The Board is composed of nine people because we assume that everybody can't
participate all of the time. When those (hopefully few) are unavailable for
a particular item, we still have quorum to get things done. If the Board had
five people, then just a few busy people would deactivate the Board. When
the Python Software Foundation was formed, it was asked, "wow. why such a
large board? why not a smaller number, like five?" Well, it is a damned glad
thing that I made it seven; there are already issues with inactivity, let
alone what would happen with just five.

The same issue applies to the various PMCs. A large group means that you get
a large body to take on any issue that requires the PMC (which is few, as
you point out: mostly, it is a dev@ issue).

> And I also think that too large a cabal will simply create 'chair's whose
> job is much bigger than a volunteer can handle.

I disagree. Ben Hyde is the HTTPD PMC chair, and he hasn't ever really been
"needed". He'll pop up around Members Meeting times to prompt for member
nominations, and he has sometimes interjected useful comments to help refine
the discussion and keep it on track. But as we've added people to the PMC, I
haven't seen his job get any more difficult.


Greg Stein, http://www.lyra.org/

View raw message