xml-general mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Berin Lautenbach <be...@ozemail.com.au>
Subject [Fwd: Updates to charter]
Date Tue, 01 Jul 2003 07:19:06 GMT

Am hoping (but not expecting :>) that no comments means no issues?

Can we re-try the vote - maybe next week to give everyone time to comment?


-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Updates to charter
Date: Tue, 24 Jun 2003 20:22:50 +1000
From: Berin Lautenbach <berin@ozemail.com.au>
To: Apache XML General <general@xml.apache.org>, pmc <pmc@xml.apache.org>


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.



 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

View raw message