Return-Path: Delivered-To: apmail-xml-general-archive@www.apache.org Received: (qmail 79198 invoked from network); 19 Nov 2003 00:37:56 -0000 Received: from daedalus.apache.org (HELO mail.apache.org) (208.185.179.12) by minotaur-2.apache.org with SMTP; 19 Nov 2003 00:37:56 -0000 Received: (qmail 21919 invoked by uid 500); 19 Nov 2003 00:37:37 -0000 Delivered-To: apmail-xml-general-archive@xml.apache.org Received: (qmail 21822 invoked by uid 500); 19 Nov 2003 00:37:35 -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 21787 invoked from network); 19 Nov 2003 00:37:33 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO mobile.webweaving.org) (64.50.32.37) by daedalus.apache.org with SMTP; 19 Nov 2003 00:37:33 -0000 Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mobile.webweaving.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D53B6371458; Tue, 18 Nov 2003 16:37:32 -0800 (PST) Date: Tue, 18 Nov 2003 16:37:32 -0800 (PST) From: Dirk-Willem van Gulik To: Neil Graham Cc: general@xml.apache.org, XML PMC Subject: Re: XML PMC and Oversight In-Reply-To: Message-ID: References: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII X-Spam-Rating: daedalus.apache.org 1.6.2 0/1000/N X-Spam-Rating: minotaur-2.apache.org 1.6.2 0/1000/N > "a release which is made without sufficient +1's votes" has generated a bit > of confusion among some Xerces-J committers. Yes - I kind of expected this. > Historically, the project has (with one or two lapses) generally worked by > having a release manager send a note to the Xerces-J development list some > time before a release, proposing a release and inviting anyone with > concerns to air them. Silence has always been interpreted as consent, and > the releases have gone ahead accordingly. Correct and I am aware of this. And I want to confirm that this is a procedure which: -> is developed by the community - and that is entirely correct; each group has a lot of leeway to do so. -> seems to works well and serve the community well. However 'real live(tm)' does increasingly expect us to be as 'above board' as possible with respect to auditability in order to allow the ASF to continue to provide its legal protection to our developers. > Are we to assume that the idea that silence is consent is no longer > sufficient? Well - ideally we want to show[1] 'active' oversight by the peers. And silent consent is not quite that. So having at least a handful of +1's in the final days leading up to the tagging of the tree and the final tar ball would be a good start. So the most minimal thing would be do things exactly as they are today; but include at the very end a 'show of hands' to confirm that this is THE release and we all OK it. Note that I am not (yet) asking for those pople to do laborious things like signing the release tar ball - just some documentation on the mailing list. Dw [1]: Show, as in, lawyers need to be able to go back into places like mail archives and find such deceision artificats. --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@xml.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@xml.apache.org