www-jcp-open mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Brett Porter <br...@apache.org>
Subject Re: thoughts on new site
Date Sat, 17 Dec 2005 09:34:28 GMT
Geir Magnusson Jr. wrote:
>> I have some random thoughts:
>> - Is listing the private addresses appropriate on this page? There isn't
>> really a precedent for listing a members only list on a public page,
>> even if it is moderated, nor something like jcp-open that doesn't have a
>> public archive.
> Addresses of the people representing us?  I thought about this and
> figured we could work it out.  I see no issue if we use the apache id
> of the reps.  Is that what you meant?
No, I meant the jcp/jcp-open lists. I've heard previously some
reluctance to list the members only addresses, svn locations, etc. on
public sites. I don't have a personal problem with it, was just curious.
>> - would it be more appropriate to put this content under the asylum in
>> the long run? (not sure its necessary - just a thought)
> Which content?
Anything that we decide only needs to be available to committers (I told
you these were random thoughts - nothing specific right now! :)
> Sure.  Actually, this is a fine way to do it.  We can come to
> conclusions from the ASF POV, and you can relay that message to the EG.
Yep, it should work.

> I think we have all of the above.  There is a private members list,
> this list which is public, and the jsrXXX-discuss is on it;s way for
> 277 at least.
Well, there does seem to be a bit of confusion, especially surrounding
the publicity of this list. Consistency is good, so how about we follow
the legal-* lists as an example?

* jcp-discuss@apache.org - only committers and their guests can
subscribe, subscription is moderated, archives are public
* jcp-internal@apache.org - members only list for discussion of Apache's
involvement in the JCP, private archives
> As for a PMC-like committee, this interest group is effectively it.  
> I'm glad to see the interest.
Ok. I just wanted to align this to other ways of working that everyone
is used to. But the steps being taken and current interest will help and
hopefully take the natural course.

Having looked into it more, it seems this is purely a board decision.
JCP is like Legal in that it is an office reporting to the board, not a
committee like security, PRC or infrastructure. I trust the board to
know what they want :)

My personal opinion (as a generality) is that its good to have a list of
people committed to helping, who've proven they'll stick around, and
with the burden of making decisions. It works well in PMCs.

Your other mail reminded me of a concern I have though - that in your
opinion it takes about a year to groom a new VP/EC rep. As I said
earlier, I definitely agree that is something that we don't want to be
doing regularly. However, there are a number of circumstances under
which that might be necessary - what if the VP gets asked by their
company to be their EC rep, or wants to stand themself as an individual?
What if they get burned out from over volunteering? What if they get hit
by a bus? (I was disturbed with the frequency with which my former boss
used that expression about me - I always look both ways now :)

I'm not saying any of those are imminent, and I trust that if they were
you'd be taking the necessary action. But they also tend to sneak up so
sharing the load can only be a good thing.
> Yes, we do need a heartbeat from the EG reps.  I don't want to see
> that the EG rep is required to report all technical status - that's
> really out of scope for the ASF-level interest, and if people are
> interested, they should get on a jsrXXX list, to which the EG rep
> might post a technical summary to those on the list, but I would leave
> that up to the group on the jsrXXX list, how they want to work.
> As for my report to the board, this is a new thing and I'll be doing
> this month (I moved it to Dec from last month).
Ok, I didn't notice it was only added in October. Is this a once off
move to Dec, or will it move to that 3 monthly rotation?

Is there any info you need from us before then? I really like the way
Jakarta does their board reports, getting everyone to fill in their own
pieces. If you would like to include the JSR heartbeats in this report,
then editing a file in SVN seems like a good way to assemble the report
and get feedback from the group in advance.
>> I agree with all these, though the part about administrative
>> communication might be a bit difficult - instead I think a summary of
>> important things (not resorting to the 3-monthly report) would be the
>> best way here.
>> Thoughts?
> I think that you'll find it isn't as interesting as you may suspect. 
> EG reps should throw exceptions for trouble they are having that they
> want help with to this list (and a good thing to note on the page,
> btw!), but historically we've had little problem.  (What we have had
> is me hearing about a problematic EG rep - this happened years ago -
> but the JCP knows how to handle that...)   I've been writing summaries
> of administrative things to this list now that I know that there's
> interest, and encouraging people to bring their interest here (we
> should see someone wanting to be on JSR-199) pop up here soon.
I'm not suggesting it would be interesting :) I agree we don't need to
know everything, but I think some exposure to it is helpful in getting
more people involved.
> I'd suggest we just iterate and improve as time goes on.

Thanks Geir. Sorry we didn't have a greater opportunity to discuss this
as a group at ApacheCon, though its good that everyone could be involved

- Brett

View raw message