www-community mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Dirk-Willem van Gulik <di...@webweaving.org>
Subject Re: [discussion] Jakarta PMC bylaws change
Date Mon, 04 Nov 2002 13:47:01 GMT


On Mon, 4 Nov 2002, Sam Ruby wrote:

> I'm planning on submitting a proposal to change the bylaws of Jakarta to

Now this seems an excelent idea to address the immediate and short term
issues around oversight and management.

However I am not sure if this is a good idea in the long run.

I fundamentally believe that the HTTP PMC model is flawed in its current
form; and simply generates another 'layer' and a weird birthday cake.

Right now we have committers, and some of those are members. That is one
stack. We've got those in fair numbers.

At the same time, and quite orthogonal, we have a few weird people who
volunteer to be on PMC's and Boards.

There is some sort of stack there; but largely these crowds are small; and
actually do not do that much.

Code development, Code management and Release management; the number one
tasks of the ASF are essentially out of bounds in this second stack. That
by and large lives on the dev@ mailing lists; and encompasses a much wider
group than just the committers. With that out of reach this makes the PMC
and board quite boring; and more about things like licenses, legal stuff,
relations with evil empires, etc, etc.

By simply 'shoveling' the most active or a large self selected
group of committers into a PMC; the PMC starts too look too much like a
place where real things 'happen'.

Things such as code development and long term code future planning.

I personally do not want that; I want to see that almost exclusively done
on dev@.

And have any 'old boys lists' = i.e. those not open to -anyone- interested
our software - to be as boring, dormant and non code relavant as possible.

A second objection I have against large PMCs is that those really focus
the oversight task onto just one person; the chair. As I personally think
that a group larger than 10 people will have a hard time to devide
oversight labour amongst themselves. Or in other words the 'peer' pressure
is small when something 'needs' to be done; as you can always think; I am
one of 50 folks :-).

So, (but please do ignore me - I aint no Jakarta community member :-), I
think that this PMC solution of Sam is a good one in the short term as it
fixes our immediate issues; but long term I would dearly see PMC's of that
kind simply become a synonym for 'committers on a project' and see those
group 'delegating up' a few boring but key aspects related to licensing
and policy to a smaller group who is easier to address.

Dw


Mime
View raw message