Return-Path: Delivered-To: apmail-xml-general-archive@xml.apache.org Received: (qmail 14312 invoked by uid 500); 2 Dec 2002 21:12:28 -0000 Mailing-List: contact general-help@xml.apache.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk list-help: list-unsubscribe: list-post: Reply-To: general@xml.apache.org Delivered-To: mailing list general@xml.apache.org Received: (qmail 14121 invoked from network); 2 Dec 2002 21:12:25 -0000 Message-ID: <014801c29a47$8371e430$0a00a8c0@boo> From: "Ted Leung" To: Cc: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , Subject: The organization of xml.apache.org Date: Mon, 2 Dec 2002 13:12:25 -0800 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_0145_01C29A04.75346570" X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2800.1106 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1106 X-Spam-Rating: daedalus.apache.org 1.6.2 0/1000/N ------=_NextPart_000_0145_01C29A04.75346570 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Hello all, At ApacheCon I had a number of great discussions with people from all = over the ASF. One of the many topics of discussion was around the organization of the ASF. = I'm going to try to summarize the organization discussion below. It seems that there are 2 major issues: 1. The ASF has a legal responsibility for oversight of the ASF projects. = In order to provide=20 some degree of legal protection for committers, the ASF needs to = demonstrate that=20 it is providing effective oversight of the projects. Ultimately, this = responsibility rests with the=20 ASF board and is currently implemented via PMCs. However, within the = ASF there is wide=20 variation in the implementation of the PMC concept. In httpd there is a = PMC for a single code base and most of the committers are a part of the PMC. Contrast that = with XML and Jakarta where there is a single (umbrella/container) PMC for many code bases, = and a tiny fraction of=20 the committers are a part of the PMC. There has been a movement in the = ASF to move=20 projects out from under the umbrella PMC's and have them be their own = projects. Some people believe that this will improve the board's visibility into the projects, = others believe that this will create an unmanageable amount of work for the board. 2. The ASF is currently membership-based, non-profit corporation. The = legal liability protections=20 of the corporation apply to the members. In the event of a legal action = against one of the committers, the ASF would attempt to defend the committer, but the automatic = liability protection of the corpration would not apply. At the moment the best way to provide = protection to those working=20 on ASFprojects is via election to membership. There has been some = discussion that the ASF needs=20 to find a better way to provide legal protection for all contributors to = projects. So why am I sending this message? I feel that the level of oversight that is being provided for the = xml.apache.org projects is insufficient. The ASF does not have the visibility into the projects that it should = have, and the projects are not getting the help/guidance/whatever that they need from the ASF. = Something needs to be changed. There are a number of possible solutions -- not all of them are mutually = exclusive: 1. Help any xml.apache.org project that wishes to become a top-level = project to do so. Each=20 top-level project will then have its own PMC which will report directly = to the ASF board. 2. Expand the xml.apache.org PMC so that every project has a = representative 3. Alter the structure of xml.apache.org to have an "administrative" PMC = that takes care of legal type stuff, and a "technical" PMC that focuses more on techical issues and = oversight. 4. Some option that hasn't been thought of yet. So, let's have a discussion about how to improve the situation. I'd like = to hear people's opinions on the options that I presented above, as well as any other suggestions for = improvement. =20 Please express your opinions! Ted ------=_NextPart_000_0145_01C29A04.75346570 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Hello all,
 
At ApacheCon I had a number of great = discussions=20 with people from all over the ASF.  One
of the many topics of discussion=20 was around the organization of the ASF.  I'm going to try=20 to
summarize the organization discussion below.
 
It seems that there are 2 major=20 issues:
 
1. The ASF has a legal responsibility = for oversight=20 of the ASF projects.  In order to provide
some degree of = legal protection for=20 committers, the ASF needs to demonstrate that 
it is providing effective oversight of the=20 projects.  Ultimately, this=20 responsibility rests with the =
ASF board and is currently implemented = via=20 PMCs.  However, within the ASF = there is wide
variation in the implementation of the = PMC=20 concept.  In httpd there is = a PMC for a=20 single code
base and most of the committers are a = part of the=20 PMC.   Contrast that with XML and Jakarta
where there is a single=20 (umbrella/container) PMC for many code bases, and a tiny fraction = of=20
the committers are a part of the PMC.   There has been a movement in the = ASF to move=20
projects out from under the umbrella = PMC's and have=20 them be their own projects.  Some people
believe that this will improve the = board's=20 visibility into the projects, others believe that this will
create an unmanageable amount of work = for the=20 board.
 
2. The ASF is currently = membership-based,=20 non-profit corporation.  The legal liability protections =
of the corporation=20 apply to the members.  In the event of a legal action against one = of the=20 committers,
the ASF would attempt to defend the = committer, but=20 the automatic liability protection of
the corpration would not = apply.   At the=20 moment the best way to provide protection to=20 those working
on ASFprojects is via election to = membership. =20 There has been some discussion that = the ASF needs=20
to find a better way to provide legal = protection=20 for all contributors to projects.
 
So why am I sending this = message?
 
I feel that the level of oversight that = is being=20 provided for the xml.apache.org projects is insufficient.
The ASF does not have the visibility = into the=20 projects that it should have, and the projects are not
getting the help/guidance/whatever that = they need=20 from the ASF.  Something needs to be changed.
 
There are a number of possible = solutions -- not all=20 of them are mutually exclusive:
 
1. Help any xml.apache.org project that = wishes to=20 become a top-level project to do so.  Each
top-level project will then have its = own PMC which=20 will report directly to the ASF board.
 
2. Expand the xml.apache.org PMC so = that every=20 project has a representative
 
3. Alter the structure of = xml.apache.org to=20 have an "administrative" PMC that takes care of legal=20 type
stuff, and a "technical" PMC that = focuses more on=20 techical issues and oversight.
 
4. Some option that hasn't been thought = of=20 yet.
 
So, let's have a discussion about how to improve the situation. I'd = like to=20 hear people's opinions on the
options that I presented above, as well as any other suggestions = for=20 improvement.  
 
Please express your opinions!
 
Ted
------=_NextPart_000_0145_01C29A04.75346570--