xml-general mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Berin Lautenbach <be...@ozemail.com.au>
Subject Updates to charter
Date Tue, 24 Jun 2003 10:22:50 GMT
Peoples,

Done some fairly major mods to various parts of the charter to try to 
accomodate peoples thoughts.  Have checked into CVS.

This is starting to get rather big and unwieldy.  I wonder if we might 
be better off taking the last three sections (and a few other parts) out 
of the charter.  A lot of this is discussed on the mission/guidelines 
section of the web page.  Does it really need to be in the charter?

To me a charter should be the basic governance structure of the project. 
  We can derive everything else separately.

Thoughts?  +/-?

Have provided change details below, trying to quickly reference back to 
people's e-mails.  If I have missed anything let me know.

I am _more_ than happy to put back/re-modify.  All comments very welcome.

Cheers,
	Berin

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=

 From Peter West's comments

- Added terms section
- Provided reference to Incubator
x No change to 5.4 - I don't think we have to state that PMC reps have 
to be committers?
- CONTRIBUTORS - Have cut a large portion of this as it doesn't really 
appear appropriate in a charter.  Should we have a separate page for 
this kind of thing?
- COMMITTERS - minor changes made as indicated
- INFRASTRUCTURE - No change.  My feeling is that the statement states 
what the PMC must do.  It so
happens that we leverage the resources provided by infrastructure to 
meet this obligation.
- Didn't add anything about procedures - saw this more as an 
infrastructure section.  Again - should we have a separate page (outside 
charter) for this kind of thing?
- DEVELOPMENT PROCESS - Left as is see below.
- SUBPROJECT REQUIREMENTS - Removed GUMP piece.  Should we remove the 
whole thing?
- ARCHITECTURE - Not sure I agree.  My own feeling is that architecture 
is actually
appropriate in this instance.  However happy to run with majority decision.

Ilene Seelemann

- Removed "CVS" from 8.1b (left as repositories)
- 10.1.  I actually kind of like having the "approved in advance" piece 
vague like this.  Each sub-project can work in with it in whatever way 
fits best.  If that
means voting for people who are pre-approved then fine.  Otherwise this 
is really a clause
to deal with problems - if people start disagreeing with what is going 
on, this this clause
provides "best practice" that people need to fall back on.

Jeremias Maerki

- CVS removed from entire document

Kip Hampton

- Added words "Where Appropriate" and "Where inter-related" to 
paragraph.  Weakens
the para slightly, but I think it makes it more in-line with reality.

Neil Graham

- Added some extra paragraphs around COMMITTERS to clarify inactive status.
? Should there be something about removing committers?

Berin Lautenbach

- Modified the voting in of the chair  (wasn't realistic before).
- Added a piece to remove PMC members who do not participate in voting 
for an extended period of time



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