xml-general mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Sam Ruby" <ru...@us.ibm.com>
Subject Re: Volunteers: FINAL Cut?
Date Fri, 09 Mar 2001 17:39:50 GMT
Scott Boag wrote:
> If we *are* shooting for project representation, then, god damn
> it, make it fair representation.  Should Xerces C or Xerces Perl
> have separate representation?

Oddly enough, I think we are agreeing.  If Xerces C and Xerces Perl feel
like one person can do them justice, then so much the better.  If not, this
should be listened to.  A more clear case from Arved's note was a single
representative for Xerces and Crimson.  Perhaps this is possible, but if
not, it shouldn't be forced.

My two cents is project representation is more important than a fixed goal
of 5.  If the right ratio turns out to be 2 projects per PMC
representative, then great.  But if the right ratio turns out to be 2 PMC
representatives per project then - while the group would be suboptimal from
a number of perspectives - but it still would be preferred over a
nonrepresentative group.

That being said, if the consensus is 5, I'm willing to go with the
consensus.  As Scott indicated, lets just do it without any pretense that
project representation is a goal.

- Sam Ruby

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

View raw message