xml-general mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From bill parducci <b...@parducci.net>
Subject Re: VOTE: PMC size
Date Tue, 06 Mar 2001 23:12:08 GMT
> Leadership doesn't happen because of process.  It happens because people
> step up to the plate, work hard, and spend the time.  Leadership shouldn't
> be appointed, it should be earned.

that's a fine model for determining pecking order in technical discussion, but is not realistic
the kind or role the PMC is supposed to be performing. last i looked the role of the PMC was
ensure that the xml-apache groups operated within the spirit of the core ideologies laid down
by the
apache foundation. there seems to be a disconnect here in that the PMC somehow is going to
casting technology mandates in stone via gubernatorial fiat. its role looks to me to be much
administrative than that.

> > This kind of thing happens because you have NO leadership.
> No, speaking for myself anyway, it happened because Roy's note came at a
> very busy time, and fell off my radar.  This stuff happens.  Also, the PMC
> as composed was made of many people who were company politicians with
> secret agendas instead of true committers with dedication to the projects
> -- a fallout from how xml.apache.org was seeded.  Rebuilding the PMC and
> charter is good and appropriate... but shouldn't be seen as indicative of
> the health of the project as a whole.

leadership can be defined in many ways. one of them -- typical of a good project manager --
is to
make sure that threads don't get dropped. perhaps the term 'responsible party(ies)' would
be better
suited for what is needed in the PMC. call me crazy, but it seems that the goal of the pmc
is to
provide a communications focal point, a repository for *high* level structure, legal and procedural
information. this does not imply that this group assume the mantle of indisputable authorship,
be able to act as a facilitator/moderator for discussing (and making available the results
issues such as that which we are discussing now. to that end, kimbro is correct, there is
leadership (ergo the current need to reboot the PMC).

as to the 'company politicians', what can you do? can you nominate 3-5 people who don't work
for a
private company that in some way influences their decision making process? defining objectivity
is a
very subject matter :o)

> > Putting a large PMC in place, especially one consisting of all committers for all
> > projects, will absolutely not solve this problem.
> You're right, it won't solve the problem, but it won't get in the way of
> solving the problem either.  Leadership is different from top-down
> management structure, which is what we don't need.  Leadership can occur in
> an open environment as well as or better than a small, closed environment.

well, that depends upon how you make decisions.  the bigger the group, the more difficult
decision making process because of the larger number of perspectives. since none of the issues
handled in real time it is impossible to have a quorum of less than the full membership so
chances of non votes increases which can impact the speed at which a decision is made due
to lack of
a defined majority.

personally, i believe that if you look at the definition of the role of the PMC it would be
hard to
make a case to have more than 5 people. as long as the discussions are held publicly all interested
parties will be able to voice their opinions as necessary.


View raw message