From general-return-6895-apmail-xml-general-archive=xml.apache.org@xml.apache.org Thu Dec 04 22:41:05 2003 Return-Path: Delivered-To: apmail-xml-general-archive@www.apache.org Received: (qmail 65459 invoked from network); 4 Dec 2003 22:41:05 -0000 Received: from daedalus.apache.org (HELO mail.apache.org) (208.185.179.12) by minotaur-2.apache.org with SMTP; 4 Dec 2003 22:41:05 -0000 Received: (qmail 9995 invoked by uid 500); 4 Dec 2003 22:40:46 -0000 Delivered-To: apmail-xml-general-archive@xml.apache.org Received: (qmail 9962 invoked by uid 500); 4 Dec 2003 22:40:46 -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 9883 invoked from network); 4 Dec 2003 22:40:45 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO mail.sergeant.org) (217.158.50.178) by daedalus.apache.org with SMTP; 4 Dec 2003 22:40:45 -0000 Received: (qmail 27059 invoked by uid 1233); 4 Dec 2003 22:40:55 -0000 Received: from 33.1.168.192.in-addr.arpa (HELO [192.168.1.33]) (192.168.1.33) by mail.sergeant.org (qpsmtpd/0.27-dev) with ESMTP; Thu, 04 Dec 2003 22:40:54 +0000 Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v604) In-Reply-To: <3FCF0F10.7000703@ozemail.com.au> References: <3FCDB99A.5040905@ozemail.com.au> <54F1EBD2-25E5-11D8-ABC4-000393DA6672@sergeant.org> <3FCF0F10.7000703@ozemail.com.au> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed Message-Id: Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From: Matt Sergeant Subject: Re: [Fwd: Re: XML PMC and Oversight] Date: Thu, 4 Dec 2003 22:40:47 +0000 To: general@xml.apache.org X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.604) X-Virus-Checked: Checked X-Spam-Status: 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 On 4 Dec 2003, at 10:40, Berin Lautenbach wrote: > So if we make AxKit (for example) a TLP, then you can *almost* keep > doing things the way you are now. You would have to appoint a chair > and PMC of your own (probably just formalising a group you already > have) and report directly to the board. Even that we might be able to > do as we do today - everyone reporting in a combined report once a > quarter. > > The difference would be that *the right people* - i.e. yourselves - > have the responsibility of reviewing your own code and releases. > Given you are already doing that, it seems like a win-win to me :>. > > Other than that - you can change as much as you want. With the > federation approach, we can all keep working together (if we so > desire) within the XML web-site and mailing lists, so nothing changes > there, and all us little projects can help each other out with this > infrastructure stuff :>. I guess I would come back with the fact that I *like* the XML PMC as middle management here. They remind me and prod me when I need to do something. Without them, I'd be reporting direct to the board, and that doesn't scale. I think I see what you're saying though - it's not the sub-projects that are failing, it's the PMC members in XML that are failing to keep an overview on all the projects. Unfortunately that might once again come down to picking tuits off trees. :-/ I guess there's no easy answers to this. Matt. --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@xml.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@xml.apache.org