Mailing-List: contact general-help@xml.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: general@xml.apache.org
Sender: rparr@TemporalArts.COM
Message-ID: <3AA8E09C.B0AEBBE2@TemporalArts.COM>
Date: Fri, 09 Mar 2001 07:54:37 -0600
From: "Randall J. Parr" <RParr@TemporalArts.COM>
Organization: Temporal Arts
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: general@xml.apache.org
Subject: Re: Volunteers: FINAL Cut?
References: <3.0.6.32.20010309070233.007ee100@chebucto.ns.ca>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

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:

> 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. :-)


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