xml-general mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Ted Leung" <twle...@sauria.com>
Subject Re: VOTE: PMC size
Date Tue, 06 Mar 2001 21:42:21 GMT
Good thoughts Arved,

I like the idea of not trying to invent the whole wheel at once.
I'm in favor of an initially small PMC -- I think 5 is a good odd number.
3 is just a little too small for me.  Let's give that initial body very
limited
and restricted responsibilities to help get some of these other ideas
organized
(like working groups or the AMC or what have your).  If it turns out that
this
particular body of people does a really good job (which is not at all clear
at this point), and some of these new ideas are worth formalizing either as
part of the PMC or some other structural entity, then we can have an all
committer vote at that time.  This lets us put something in place now so
we can get to the real discussion about synchronization, cooperation, and
so on.  We aren't forced to commit to a whole bunch of other stuff, but we
also have way to add some of that other stuff as our collective thoughts
mature.  We, the xml project have never had a project-wide public discussion
on this stuff before, so I think that the whole community need some time to
discuss and meet each other.  I think that a new PMC should be trying to
facilitate
that set of discussions.

Ted

----- Original Message -----
From: "Arved Sandstrom" <Arved_37@chebucto.ns.ca>
To: <general@xml.apache.org>
Sent: Tuesday, March 06, 2001 2:56 AM
Subject: Re: VOTE: PMC size


> At 12:28 AM 3/6/01 -0500, Scott_Boag@lotus.com wrote:
> >
> >"Roy T. Fielding" <fielding@ebuilt.com> wrote:
> >> That is, the PMC is supposed to be
> >> elected by the committers on the project, or include all of the
> >committers
> >> on the project, because that's pretty much the only way to ensure that
> >> what we do remains a true collaboration and doesn't degrade into some
> >sort
> >> of consortium or a mirror of our real jobs.
> >
> >Given Roy's note, I should add to my list:
> >
> >E) include all of the committers on the project
> >
> >I would vote, in order of preference:
> >
> >E -- I like this because it is inclusive of the people who do active
work.
> >If you put code into Apache on a regular basis, you should have the right
> >to be part of the decision making process, even if they are "dry" issues.
> >
> >D -- I like this because it is potentially a more manageable version of
E,
> >but I still like E better.
> >
> >A -- If we can't have representative input, then the PMC should be very
> >small, and it's scope severely limited, as much as possible under the
ASF's
> >bylaws.  Strictly "to make sure we do things legally and without
recklessly
> >endangering the foundation's assets (the good name and all of the code
> >contributed to the foundation)", and where privacy is required.  For
> >instance, in this case the decision to include a new project should not
be
> >part of it's scope, this should be put to a committer vote, with maybe a
> >anonymous vote from the PMC able to veto.
> >
> >-scott
>
> It would probably be useful for the brothers and sisters (all
> committers...heck, anyone reading this list) to be aware that Roy's mail
is
> the logical culmination of arguments and debate on members@apache.org. In
> effect, we could reach no useful conclusion. But that dissolution and
> reformation was going to happen is not news (to us).
>
> The immediate problem as I see it is that Roy presented the role of the
PMC
> in the light of "PMC as legal entity". The entire reason we were arguing
> over PMCs and alternative bodies etc etc ad nauseam on 'members' is
> _because_ several (many?) of us felt that in between the level of members
> (who have a legal function but are otherwise tasked to do little), and
> committers (who are doing the work), there seemed to be an intermediate
> level that could do more.
>
> Roy is presenting the view of PMC as it _must_ be, minimum. Which is his
> responsibility. Unfortunately, this takes us right back to square one:
> legalistic PMC, and we _still_ want (I assume) one or more higher-level
> groups to have more functional responsibilities within XML Apache.
>
> I would propose that we simplify matters initially by not looking for a
"new
> model" PMC. We just conduct an all-committer vote that picks out maybe 4-6
> committers to sit as the "dry" version of a PMC - Scott's description of
> option A.
>
> I also propose 2 standing working groups. The first is composed
> automatically of all committers, and this is where decisions like forming
a
> new project are made. This first group also forms and dissolves all the
> other working groups. The second standing working group is an advisory
> group, possibly 5-10 people, and is composed of people that committers
have
> voted on (selected) from among the number of external individuals who
> nominated themselves these past few weeks. I saw a whole bunch of
> enthusiastic individuals who obviously have very useful things to offer. I
> would like to not lose that input.
>
> All other functions are accommodated through the already discussed
mechanism
> of having temporary working groups. The all-committer body (standing WG)
has
> identification and management of these WGs as one of its primary
functions.
> Scott's Architectural Mgmt Council could definitely be one of these. These
> WGs would be composed of committers _and_ members of the advisory group,
as
> appropriate.
>
> Just some thoughts.
>
> Regards,
> Arved Sandstrom
>
> Fairly Senior Software Type
> e-plicity (http://www.e-plicity.com)
> Wireless * B2B * J2EE * XML --- Halifax, Nova Scotia
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> In case of troubles, e-mail:     webmaster@xml.apache.org
> To unsubscribe, e-mail:          general-unsubscribe@xml.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@xml.apache.org
>


Mime
View raw message