On Sat, 2002-11-09 at 07:19, Greg Stein wrote: <snip/> > In short, my request to the Jakarta PMC was "something needs to be done". Of > the PMC people who responded, the general tendency seemed to be supportive > of creating an Avalon PMC, provided the community was amenable to doing so. > IOW, the PMC deferred first-rights to the community to take some action. > > This means the community needs to reach a consensus on what to do. If that > can't happen, then the Jakarta PMC or the Board will Do Something(tm) :-)
I am for not having a Do Something(tm) invocation :) IIUC, the board, the PMC, and the president want to see the avalon community take action, and between them there is some sort of consensus that it would be 'a good idea' for the avalon community to form an Avalon PMC? some loose comments and a few questions below... <snip/> > That is part of it, yes. My own opinion is also that the PMC did not manage > the community properly. From my point, I see a highly contentious and > divided community. aside: I do think (as Paul Hammant said) that the division is maybe not as big as it appears to some 'outsiders' at the moment. There's some very solid common ground. <snip/> > The role of a PMC member does not incur any overhead relative to what you > are already doing. In fact, Roy Fielding has stated that the division > between a voting committer(*) and a PMC member is not supposed to exist. > IOW, if you have voting rights, then you should be on the PMC. > > The Chair has a duty to provide the Board with a quarterly report, but has > no other additional time overhead. The Chair *is* an officer of the > corporation, which incurs certain responsibilities and accountability, but > an officer also happens to receive more legal protection than the PMC > members :-) Does the accountability imply some sort of authority? If the chair is accountable for actions taken by the PMC, how does that work legally? I've reread http://www.apache.org/foundation/bylaws.html once more, but couldn't find an answer. What's the preferred way to suggest a chair? Do we vote on that? <snip/> > I think it was Costin that said it best: vetoes shouldn't be used to steer > the design. This is why I suggested (as Steve mentioned above) that the > Avalon project start over. As a community, decide what the heck Avalon is > and get it assembled. Either from old parts, or newly developed parts. But > ignore the design from the past and come up with an "Avalon 2". aaaaargh!! ;) I don't think anyone who uses or develops avalon wants that... <snip/> > I had even suggsted using org.apache.avalon2, although Sam pointed out that > would pose backwards compat issues. It sure would :-). But if Avalon hasn't > had a release, then it seems "okay" to just archive the old avalon and start > a new one, under a new namespace. JAMES and other users can migrate. > > But hey... I know nothing about the ramifications of that :-). The question > for the new PMC to answer is: how do we start over to create a design that > is community driven? I'm perfectly okay with "starting over" regarding rules, bylaws, project organisation, setup, etc etc. I don't think starting over completely from a code perspective is a good idea. Some parts of avalon are of solid enterprise quality and have been released as such and should be supported. But this is again an aside; it's the proposed PMCs job to decide all that, innit? ;) <snip/> > I might also suggest putting everything back into a single CVS, available to > all committers. I'm not sure why multiple CVS repositories exist (there > could be great reasons!) technical reasons. Avalon is a bit too big to work with comfortably in a single CVS....a chicken-and-egg style problem perhaps... <snip/> cheers, - Leo -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: <mailto:avalon-dev-unsubscribe@;jakarta.apache.org> For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:avalon-dev-help@;jakarta.apache.org>
