xml-general mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Arved Sandstrom <Arved...@chebucto.ns.ca>
Subject Re: Volunteers: FINAL Cut?
Date Fri, 09 Mar 2001 11:02:33 GMT
At 12:20 AM 3/9/01 -0500, Sam Ruby wrote:
>Two questions (and an observation).
>
>1.  Is the following the final list?
>
>  [ ] Scott Boag
>  [ ] Matthew B Brandabur
>  [ ] Kelly A. Campbell
>  [ ] Luc Chamberland
>  [ ] Shane Curcuru
>  [ ] Vincent Hardy
>  [ ] Ted Leung
>  [ ] Ram Mareddy
>  [ ] Tinny Ng
>  [ ] Sam Ruby
>  [ ] Arved Sandsrom
>  [ ] Davanum Srinivas
>  [ ] Kimbro Staken
>  [ ] Rajesh Thiharie
>  [ ] Dirk-Willem van Gulik

Not quite final. :-) I put my name up assuming that we'd be shooting for the 
big-PMC model (at least 7 or 8 people, I had that in a post someplace); now 
that the dust has settled and we are shooting for 5, I'm going to withdraw 
my candidacy. There will be plenty to do in the working groups.

A number of other observations:

We are pushing for project representation, say about 1 person per 2 
sub-projects. In fact, I would say that this seems to be a primary goal for 
the composition of the final PMC. Which I agree with.

I'd be quite surprised if open voting for the list of names above gives us 
anything like what we say that we want. And I am definitely not commenting 
on individuals here - that is not the point.

If we are saying that project representation is the thing, and we are aiming 
for 5 members to represent the sub-projects of XML Apache, we have to bite 
the bullet and prune out the external nominees. Unless someone cares to 
explain how a non-committer will specifically represent some codebases.

We have no controls in place to ensure distribution. Voting could result in 
no representation for FOP or Batik, for example, after all the effort we 
have put in to ensure that we have candidates from every project. Again, we 
need to bite the bullet: if we are saying that we want adequate 
representation then the voting procedure must enforce it. In the final 
analysis, and correct me if I'm wrong, we are not only saying that we need 
representative candidates; we're also saying that we need representative 
_representation_.

One possible solution: after pruning the external names (based on the one 
interpretation), identify project affiliations. And impose a further voting 
requirement - not only do people cast 5 votes, but they do so according to 
something like "cast 1 vote for a Xerces/Crimson rep, cast 1 vote for a 
Xalan/SOAP rep, cast 1 vote for a FOP/Batik rep, cast 1 vote for a 
Cocoon/Xang rep, and cast your final vote wherever you like". It might seem 
absurd, but unless we do something like this I'm not sure that there isn't a 
discrepancy between what we are saying and what we are doing.

Sorry to throw a wrench in at 5 minutes to midnight. Well, not that sorry. :-)

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