xml-general mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From James Melton <james.mel...@cylogix.com>
Subject Re: Volunteers: FINAL Cut?
Date Fri, 09 Mar 2001 15:30:11 GMT
I had assumed that _explicit_ project representation in the PMC
membership was not an issue especially in light of the discussions
regarding temporary working groups. So long as the PMC discusses issues
in an open forum, they will get sufficient input from all projects. I
expect they would be sensitive to those situations that require privacy
and would ensure that they don't inadvertently disadvantage one project.

Are we(you) able to oversee these proposed voting rules? Just curious
since some schemes will require identifying project affiliations for
voters/candidates.

Jim.

"Randall J. Parr" wrote:
> 
> Why not have establish the voting rules and then have each group you want
> represented vote for and elect one candidate. In addition, you could elect one,
> two, (?) members at large (possibly allowing non-committers, etc.).
> 
> R.Parr
> Temporal Arts
> 
> Arved Sandstrom wrote:
> 
> >
> > 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. :-)
> 
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> 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

-- 

____________________________________________________________
James Melton                 CyLogix
609.750.5190                 609.750.5100
james.melton@cylogix.com     www.cylogix.com

---------------------------------------------------------------------
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