I think we should postpone this discussion until we get an official board position on the legal issues.
It seems a decision is made based on this email from Roy. Is Roy saying that jakarta commiters are not protected unless each is member of the PMC ? That means that for the last 2 years the ASF didn't offer the legal protection it was supposed to do ? And the board just ignored the problem for some reasons ? Roy is also saying that having a PMC requires beeing a top level project ( i.e. out of jakarta - which seems to be his goal ). At the same time other board members seem to have a different opinion. I think it is better to wait for the Board to clarify those issues. If indeed this is required from legal point of view - then we have no other choice and the argument that Stefano and Nicola is using should apply to all jakarta projects, automatically and asap. Or to imediately disolve jakarta PMC ( which wouldn't be bad :-), and create a new Jakarta PMC formed by all jakarta committers. Nicola - I partially understand your enthusiasm. But shouldn't you first do this in avalon and cocoon ? Centipede is a nice project, but I think you're taking a very wrong approach to promote it. Stefan - I can't argue with your decision, but I think you are making it based on wrong data. This is a majority decision - but seems like an important one, and we should at least have a clear understanding of the legal issues and a clear proposal with each decision clearly defined ( wich doesn't seem the case ). 1. Should Ant have a formal PMC ? My vote is +1 2. Who should be part of this PMC ? My vote is for 'all active commiters'. 3. Should Ant be a top level project ? My vote is -0. 4. Should Ant have a domain ant.apache.org ? Certainly +1 5. Should Ant leave Jakarta ? My strong -1. 6. Should Ant be transformed into a group of projects including centipede, maven, etc ? I think -1. 7. Should Centipede be accepted in apache/jakarta ? +1 8. Should Forest be the default content generation in jakarta/apache/incubator/etc ? -1 ( for the same reason I -1 'lets convert all to maven' ) Costin >>>The concept of a PMC, and the reason that anyone having a vote on >>>the project code-base should be a member of the PMC, is to provide >>>legal protection to those people as individuals. Not being on a PMC >>>(as defined by the bylaws) means that each and every decision made >>>by those committers is outside the scope of Apache's legal >>>protection, which in turn means that if a mistake is made (or some >>>asshole lawyer just feels like it), any suit against the committer >>>actions (such as infringement of some unknown patent) would have to >>>be defended by the committers on their own. The ASF would be able >>>to defend the code itself, but not the people whose actions were >>>outside the PMC. >> >> >> with that, I pretty much feel that every Ant committer needs to be in >> a PMC to gain the protection she/he deserves. To do that, Ant would >> have to become a top-level project, thus my +1 above. > > I agree, this is exactly the point. -- Costin -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
