xml-general mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Thomas DeWeese <Thomas.DeWe...@Kodak.com>
Subject Re: XML Graphics PMC discussion - Wiki page created
Date Tue, 17 Feb 2004 16:01:00 GMT
Glen Mazza wrote:

> Excellent write-up.  However, I haven't seen much support from the Batik
> project yet in having an XML Graphics PMC, so we appear to need more buy-in
> from them.  

Hi all,

    Vincent and I talked, and we both agreed that this is probably the
right course of action.  The biggest reason we have been quiet on this
issue is lack of resources.  I don't know what the formal requirements
for a PMC are but it is pretty clear that Batik couldn't really have a
PMC that differed significantly from the committer base.

    It would also be good to have some level of formal interaction
between FOP/Batik (although we seem to have done fairly well thus

> As an alternative, it appears that much of what we're trying to accomplish
> here can also be had by making Thomas DeWeese a committer on the FOP
> project.  This would be an incredible gain for us (transcoder, SVG support
> in FOP, etc), without needing to disrupt Batik, or needing to put too much
> of FOP into shared components in order to obtain his help.  

    I appreciate the sentiment but I doubt you would get much more out
of me then you already do :)

> Note that this
> is not a long-term solution, though, esp. if multiple Batik committers would
> also need to turn into FOP committers--something I'm leery on.  But it
> appears an option to have us do this first for a few months or so, and then
> decide on merging, shared components, etc., later.

     While the proposal talks about the shared components I think that
the common PMC just gives us a better framework for eventually
creating them it does not need to happen immediately.  Also another
side advantage of creating these components is that I think it would
greatly promote participation on them.  When they are a small part of
a huge project people don't want to invest the effort to figure out
how to change things without breaking anything.  When/if they are
standalone people can grasp the important bits easier.

     I think the biggest difference in the short term will be that
before releases, etc we will now need a vote from the graphics PMC -
which will give FOP/Batik developers more 'heads up'.

     As for the 'potentially problematic points', first it isn't
clear that all committers on FOP/Batik would want/need to be
committers on the shared projects (as long as at least one committer
from each was).  This would actually be my preferred way to handle 
them, essentially independent projects under the graphics umbrella. 
Second the new guys seem to know when they shouldn't touch something,
which makes them fine by me :)

> Glen Mazza
> FOP Team
> [1] http://www.fawcette.com/reports/javaone/2003/awards/default_pf.asp
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Jeremias Maerki" <dev.jeremias@greenmail.ch>
> To: <general@xml.apache.org>
> Cc: <fop-dev@xml.apache.org>; <batik-dev@xml.apache.org>
> Sent: Sunday, February 15, 2004 7:55 AM
> Subject: XML Graphics PMC discussion - Wiki page created
>>As promised I've started a Wiki page with all the things I collected
>>about the XML Graphics PMC (Batik and FOP moving closer together). This
>>is to move on the discussion that started earlier. Once the board is
>>satisfied with the federation proposal and this XML Graphics idea
>>doesn't face opposition I'd like to create a concrete proposal that will
>>be voted on by the Batik and FOP projects (and probably the XML PMC) and
>>the approved by the board.
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@xml.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@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