Changing the topic, so the vote is not polluted by this discussion.
David J, thanks for your response, and I am also very interested in
David B's response. I am certainly not trying to stir the pot (so to
speak), just concrete clarification which I think needs to be on the
OpenEJB wiki. This question had come up before on the mailing lists
and it seems nebulous as to the rules for the project.
Comments in-line below...
On Jul 11, 2009, at 3:10 PM, David Jencks wrote:
On Jul 11, 2009, at 4:38 AM, Jeff Genender wrote:
David,
Voting as a committer, Jon certainly gets my +1 to be a PMC
individual. But this vote seems strange whereby committers are
voting on PMC membership.
Can you be a bit more specific on the voting of people into the
PMC? OpenEJB seems to have a different set of rules and it would
be good to clarify the position... perhaps on the wiki somewhere?
Most PMC's vote for entry to PMC. Here I see a vote on dev and
there has not been clarification as to who gets to vote and whether
it be private/public, so its a bit confusing to me.
According to this link, it has a set of rules as to how things are
done:
http://www.apache.org/dev/pmc.html
It is clear it says the PMC should be the ones to privately discuss
and vote on nominees for project, project committee, etc. How do
you propose to handle sensitive topics like discussion of a
committer out in the open? 99/100 times the discussion and vote
will be clean, but that 1/100 time where -1s and heavy sensitive
discussion ensues, bad feelings can become a issue.
I read that as saying that as little as possible should be on the
private list and that some possible allowed topics are XYZ but that
if the project wants to discuss them in public it is free to do so.
We certainly run a risk of bad feelings if acrimonious debate erupts
over someones PMC membership. Personally I feel that the openejb
community is so amazingly open and friendly that the risks are
negligible.
I read the part about little as possible (and something I heavily
agree with). But I am not convinced completely that it says that if
you want to discuss the *private* matters in public to feel free to do
so. Perhaps the policy is confusing.... I read it like this:
"Policies
--------
Terms in this section as used as per RFC 2119"
RFC 2119 defines "SHALL" as :
"1. MUST This word, or the terms "REQUIRED" or "SHALL", mean that the
definition is an absolute requirement of the specification."
The PMC document goes on to say:
"All Project Management Committees SHALL restrict their communication
on private mailing lists to issues that cannot be discussed in public
such as:
* nominees for project, project committee or Foundation membership"
I think the potential confusion lies heavily at the bottom of the
document which states:
"Where Should Project Business Be Discussed?
Read the *policy*."
and it ends with:
"Some projects use the main development list for discussing these
matters. Others have a dedicated list (traditionally general) for the
discussion of pmc and project-wide topics which do not need to be
confidential."
So it seems it is most certainly confusing (The SHALL (must) as policy
and you must follow the policy, then ending with "do whatever you
want"). However, the clarifying part, IMHO, states "for the discussion
of PMC and project-wide topics which do not need to be confidential".
What is "confidential"? I read confidential means "discussion of
candidates for committership and PMC". But maybe that is just me and
I really don't know ;-)
I am really bringing this up because, just like you, I have very
serious doubts anyone brought up for committer/PMC would be -1'd, but
it can still be a sensitive topic since being open will quash
anybody's ability to be open/honest about someone due to possible hurt
feelings (although I believe your using the adjective of "acrimonious"
is a bit strong since bitterness is not a requirement for wanting to
discuss contribution openly without retribution). I guess its a risk
a project can take, but its nice to know it as project policy, and
hopefully written somewhere. I personally would like to know the
rules since it clearly departs from the norm at Apache.
clearing up whose votes count for pmc membership might be good
though :-)
+1!!! ;-)
Jeff
thanks
david jencks
Do you have thoughts on how this will be handled as well as a good
clarification for OpenEJB's rules regarding voting, etc that seem
to move itself away from the way things are normally done at Apache?
Thanks in advance for the clarification,
Jeff
On Jul 10, 2009, at 7:28 PM, David Blevins wrote:
Per the "Adding Jon to the PMC" discussion:
http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/openejb-dev/200907.mbox/%[email protected]%3e
Here's the vote for adding Jonathan Gallimore to the PMC so he can
assist in providing legal oversight for the project in general,
but more specifically the Eclipse plugin which needs more oversight.
Vote will be open for at least 72 hours -- likely far beyond that
as we tend to be a 4-5 days kind of group :)
Here's my +1
--
David
