xml-general mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Sam Ruby <ru...@apache.org>
Subject Re: The organization of xml.apache.org
Date Tue, 03 Dec 2002 01:40:05 GMT
Steven Noels wrote:
> [suggestion to hold this discussion only on general@xml.a.o from now?]
> 
>>  > Separate code bases with separate communities should be separate
>>  > projects.  Independent of the size of the codebase, if the size of
>>  > the community is only a few people, then it is not an ASF project.
>>  > Such efforts can be pursued outside of the ASF, be pursued inside the
>>  > Incubator, or be incorporated inside an existing community – as long
>>  > as all participants in that larger community are treated as peers.
> 
> Please define 'a few':

Some undefined number above three.  Undefined only because it is a 
judgment call.

> bash-2.04$ cat /home/cvs/CVSROOT/avail | grep fop
> avail|coar,dirkx,stefano,twl,andyh,sboag,jtauber,andyc,rpfeiffe,mpogue,mdierken,kvisco,eduardop,abagchi,rahulj,rwebster,roddey,dleslie,mmidy,sanjiva,dmarston,pauldick,curcuru,dbertoni,jdonohue,robweir,balld,ricardo,zvia,gmarcy,arkin,duncan,aruna1,rajiv,fotis,eschaeffer,arved,gears,jordan,keiron,stanislav,klease,kellyc,artw,tore,bdelacretaz,chrisg,pbwest,pietsch,jeremias,olegt,vmote|xml-fop,xml-site,xml-commons

> 
> bash-2.04$ cat /home/cvs/CVSROOT/avail | grep xang
> avail|coar,dirkx,mode,stefano,twl,andyh,sboag,jtauber,andyc,rpfeiffe,mpogue,mdierken,kvisco,eduardop,abagchi,rahulj,rwebster,roddey,dleslie,mmidy,sanjiva,dmarston,pauldick,curcuru,dbertoni,jdonohue,robweir,balld,ricardo,zvia,gmarcy,arkin,duncan,aruna1,rajiv,lehors,jeffreyr,rubys,ben,hbed,duftler,jkesselm,auriemma,jacek,martinf,costin,garyp,johng,tmiller,amiro,morten,ovidiu,jambroziak,santiagopg,ilene,zongaro,mkwan|xml-site,xml-xalan,xml-stylebook,xml-xang,xml-admin,xml-commons

> 
> From the result of this, one could possibly say FOP has less community 
> then Xang, but we all knew the opposite is quite true.

If taken literally, my read of this is that they are essentially the 
same community.

>> With respect to XML, I honestly don't know how many communities we 
>> have. But the above provides a recipe to find out.  Without changing 
>> any physical layout of mailing lists or cvs repositories, we can begin 
>> to phase out the karma and voting boundaries between various 
>> subprojects. Those that don't wish to participate will be encouraged 
>> to form their own separate projects (or move into incubation).
> 
> I agree that breaking the barriers between subprojects, especially 
> concerning voting (not so sure about karma), is an interesting 
> Darwinistic and community exercise, but if we do so, we should do it 
> based on some well-defined criteria.

Each community is welcome to define its own criteria.

> Concerning commit rights, I still believe that commit rights should be 
> earned within the community that grows a certain subproject however.

OK, as long as separate community = separate project (in the ASF sense).

> That is, when a 'project' in your scenario would be something like 
> cocoon.a.o, and a 'subproject' of that being Forrest.

If the cocoon and forrest share the same community, then this is fine 
with me.  Otherwise, this they should be peer projects.

>> What I like most about such a proposal is that it is completely up to 
>> the commiters to decide whether they want opt in or opt out.
> 
> I would say 'make use of their rights or not' instead of 'opt in/out'.

OK.

>> What do others think?
> 
> I'm still trying to understand what you are aiming at ;-)

Merge or diverge.  Having community boundaries distinct from PMC 
boundaries is not sustainable.

- 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


Mime
View raw message