Re: Search for new chair
By my count, four people are in favor and no one objects so I think the consensus is clear. By my reading of How the ASF works, the Board nominates the new chair. Since the current chair is resigning and we have a volunteer for the post, it's up to Jim to communicate this to the Board at the next meeting, and up to the Board to decide whether to nominate Chris. I don't know what other option there is. Jim, it would be nice if you could confirm or clarify the procedure for the rest of us. Martin On 6/7/13 7:22 AM, C. Bergström wrote: On 06/ 7/13 08:07 PM, Jim Jagielski wrote: The PMC report is due at this month's meeting... so what's the word? Should we propose a new chair?? I've volunteered and multiple people have +1, but I don't know the official procedure for this.
Re: Search for new chair
On Thu, 30 May 2013 08:27:38 -0600 Martin Sebor mse...@gmail.com wrote: On 05/30/2013 06:04 AM, Jim Jagielski wrote: On May 29, 2013, at 5:55 PM, Martin Sebor mse...@gmail.com wrote: But to be chair, one needs to be a member of the foundation. That's not true. It would certainly simplify the situation if it wasn't. I've always understood that one would have to be based on statements like the one below (copied from Project Management Committees (PMC)): Each PMC consists of at least one officer of the ASF, who shall be designated chairperson, and may include one or more *other* members of the ASF. The statement is correct, although non-ASF members may also be members of the project's PMC, and I think the statement was not cast very clearly. In appointing a chair, the Board simultaneously names them to be a Vice President of the Foundation, ensuring they are an officer of the ASF (and not simply a committee chair). That suggests that chairperson is the one required member of the foundation on a PMC. The chair of the PMC is appointed by the Board and is an officer of the ASF (Vice President). Does an officer of the ASF not have to be a member? Correct. Hope my comments above made this clearer.
Search for new chair
I am stepping down as Chair of the C++ StdLib PMC. So the question is: Does this project and community elect a new Chair, or does it enter the Attic?
Re: Search for new chair
On 05/29/13 06:29 PM, Jim Jagielski wrote: I am stepping down as Chair of the C++ StdLib PMC. So the question is: Does this project and community elect a new Chair, or does it enter the Attic? I'd be willing to chair if others are supportive
Re: Search for new chair
On 05/29/2013 01:33 PM, C. Bergström wrote: On 05/29/13 06:29 PM, Jim Jagielski wrote: I am stepping down as Chair of the C++ StdLib PMC. So the question is: Does this project and community elect a new Chair, or does it enter the Attic? I'd be willing to chair if others are supportive You have my +1 :) Regards -- ^TM
Re: Search for new chair
On Wed, May 29, 2013 at 3:41 PM, C. Bergström cbergst...@pathscale.comwrote: On 05/29/13 08:27 PM, Stefan Teleman wrote: On Wed, May 29, 2013 at 7:33 AM, C. Bergström cbergst...@pathscale.com wrote: On 05/29/13 06:29 PM, Jim Jagielski wrote: I am stepping down as Chair of the C++ StdLib PMC. So the question is: Does this project and community elect a new Chair, or does it enter the Attic? I'd be willing to chair if others are supportive OK, so before I give you a +1, could you please outline what is your Plan(TM) regarding resurrecting this project? How are you going to do it, and, more specifically, what are you going to do? Off the cuff reply and I'll give this more thought and planning if others are supportive 1) I think the most important thing is grow the community a. Let people know how important and STL is b. Advocate for wider adoption/testing (See if we can get prebuilt packages and clear instructions for how people can use/test STDCXX) 2) Evaluate and get feedback from you and others about how we can improve the project (Communication, code review, growth opportunities.. etc) 3) From my $JOB I can advocate to help with code review, QA and ensuring good contributions like what you've done before actually get committed -- One thing I don't yet have a clear idea how to accomplish is C++11 support. A C++03 STL is far from dead, but we need a 2-4 year plan to catch-up with others. My guiding principle is : Use, love and contribute back We need to increase our userbase 1st to start this cycle Hi, although I follow this list for a few years, it's actually my first post. I agree community would be on top, so let's say one would like to contribute to the project... What would be the greatest motivating factor? I mean: This project has been relatively quiet; There's now libc++, which can probably better attract developers (specially given its connection with clang) - as fair as I know Window/Linux are not complete yet; I guess STLport is also missing C++11, but I'd assume it's more widely spread than the STDCXX and with more derivations, then more potential as well. From a more practical side, regarding popularity and consequently an active community: How much people (and who) are using STDCXX (I couldn't find this on the page, sorry if it's there somewhere) and in which areas can the STDCXX be awesome and differentiate from the others. Portability, i18n... -- Leandro http://www.ltcmelo.com
Re: Search for new chair
On 05/30/13 03:48 AM, Leandro T. C. Melo wrote: Hi, although I follow this list for a few years, it's actually my first post. I agree community would be on top, so let's say one would like to contribute to the project... What would be the greatest motivating factor? I'd say our target is c++ enthusiasts/professionals, system maintainers and compiler engineers Licensing, portability, quality of codebase, standards conformance and hopefully performance (though I don't have benchmarks to substantiate this claim right now) I mean: This project has been relatively quiet; There's now libc++, which can probably better attract developers (specially given its connection with clang) Based on the commit logs - how much non-Apple/general clang contributions does libc++ get? STL hacking isn't the sexiest project to contribute to generally.. - as fair as I know Window/Linux are not complete yet; I guess STLport is also missing C++11, but I'd assume it's more widely spread than the STDCXX and with more derivations, then more potential as well. STLport's last release was 2008 and I'm not sure how much potential could be derived from that From a more practical side, regarding popularity and consequently an active community: How much people (and who) are using STDCXX (I couldn't find this on the page, sorry if it's there somewhere) and in which areas can the STDCXX be awesome and differentiate from the others. Portability, i18n... I know of a few companies/projects using stdcxx, but it's probably better to leave this as a TODO.
Re: Search for new chair
On 05/29/2013 05:33 AM, C. Bergström wrote: On 05/29/13 06:29 PM, Jim Jagielski wrote: I am stepping down as Chair of the C++ StdLib PMC. So the question is: Does this project and community elect a new Chair, or does it enter the Attic? I'd be willing to chair if others are supportive I'm in favor. Thanks for volunteering! Martin
Re: Search for new chair
On 05/29/2013 07:27 AM, Stefan Teleman wrote: On Wed, May 29, 2013 at 7:33 AM, C. Bergström cbergst...@pathscale.com wrote: On 05/29/13 06:29 PM, Jim Jagielski wrote: I am stepping down as Chair of the C++ StdLib PMC. So the question is: Does this project and community elect a new Chair, or does it enter the Attic? I'd be willing to chair if others are supportive OK, so before I give you a +1, could you please outline what is your Plan(TM) regarding resurrecting this project? How are you going to do it, and, more specifically, what are you going to do? FYI: A chair doesn't necessarily need to have a plan to do anything other than fulfill the duties assigned to them by the ASF: http://www.apache.org/dev/pmc.html#chair It's mostly a bureaucratic role, and can be a big time sink (reading all the mailing lists, like board and members can be especially time consuming). Other than that, being a chair doesn't give one the power or ability to assure the success of a project than the rest of us. But to be chair, one needs to be a member of the foundation. It's usually a non-trivial process for one to become a member. Some of the prerequisites include long time contribution to at least one project, the sponsorship and nomination by another member, and a vote to accept the new member of the rest of the membership. I think the vote happens just a few times a year, and the last one was just last week. Maybe there's a way around this bureaucracy if the alternative is shutting the project down. Martin --Stefan
Re: Search for new chair
On Wed, May 29, 2013 at 5:55 PM, Martin Sebor mse...@gmail.com wrote: On 05/29/2013 07:27 AM, Stefan Teleman wrote: On Wed, May 29, 2013 at 7:33 AM, C. Bergström cbergst...@pathscale.com wrote: On 05/29/13 06:29 PM, Jim Jagielski wrote: I am stepping down as Chair of the C++ StdLib PMC. So the question is: Does this project and community elect a new Chair, or does it enter the Attic? I'd be willing to chair if others are supportive OK, so before I give you a +1, could you please outline what is your Plan(TM) regarding resurrecting this project? How are you going to do it, and, more specifically, what are you going to do? FYI: A chair doesn't necessarily need to have a plan to do anything other than fulfill the duties assigned to them by the ASF: http://www.apache.org/dev/pmc.html#chair It's mostly a bureaucratic role, and can be a big time sink (reading all the mailing lists, like board and members can be especially time consuming). Other than that, being a chair doesn't give one the power or ability to assure the success of a project than the rest of us. But to be chair, one needs to be a member of the foundation. It's usually a non-trivial process for one to become a member. Some of the prerequisites include long time contribution to at least one project, the sponsorship and nomination by another member, and a vote to accept the new member of the rest of the membership. I think the vote happens just a few times a year, and the last one was just last week. Maybe there's a way around this bureaucracy if the alternative is shutting the project down. My question was purely pragmatic. If we are to try reviving the project (again) and elect another chair (again) I'd like to know that it won't be yet another dead-end exercise. I also think Leandro asked a very pertinent set of questions in his earlier post. --Stefan -- Stefan Teleman KDE e.V. stefan.tele...@gmail.com
