Jeremias Maerki <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote on 11/15/2005 08:28:11 AM:
> In terms of the Apache bylaws the PMC is the only body that can do
> project decisions .
It appears that they are the 'binding body' from the ASF point of
view, but as a PMC member I would really like to see an invitation
for the collection of other points of view (i.e. a vote on dev/user
for a release). In this case I'm sure it will be greeted with
enthusiasm, but I'm really hesitant to set precedent based on the
'best case' situation.
> BTW, this is a topic that's currently discussed on legal-discuss .
From a quick read I take away that the ASF requires 3 +1 from PMC
members (oddly unvetoable), but that individual PMC's can have
additional requirements, such as a positive vote from committers. As
chair it appears that this is your call, so I'll just provide my
> Where did you read this that a vote has to run a full week? AFAIK,
> the normal period is 72 hours .
I think reading 'at least 72 hours' as 'normal period' is a little
misleading. It is far to common for people to disappear for a week's
vacation meaning that with just 72hrs an issue can come up be voted
before someone sipping margarita's in the Bahamas even knows what has
happened. I know that Batik always used 1 week for important votes
for exactly this reason. It can of course be terminated earlier if
all binding voters reply before the time is up.
> I think it would be worthwhile if everybody here would reread the pages
> about how the ASF works. There have been quite a few improvements on
> these pages lately. The board and the members also made up their minds
> some more aboute certain topics.
I think a clear distinction should be made between the minimum
required by the ASF and what we think is reasonable. Especially
because in my mind the constituent projects under the XML-Graphics PMC
are probably more independent than many. To be honest it makes me
quite uncomfortable that at least in theory Batik could be 'forced'
to have a release by FOP (even in spite of strong objections from the
Batik community). Now I don't consider this a serious concern right now
but the fact that the passability exists is IMHO bad.
> Even I should probably reread them
> again, although as a member I get a lot of that through the members list
> already. Reading those pages shows, for example, why the XML project had
> to split up.
> While we're at it: There are even voices that projects shouldn't
> micromanage committer sets anymore. For us, that would mean: All Batik
> committers become FOP committers and vice-versa. But that's for later.
> So far, it was just a stray comment on one of the lists.
Well, once again I think that having shared committership among the
xml-graphics-commons packages is a good thing (it's a set of code that
is needed/used fairly heavily by both projects), however I think it
would be a poor choice to have a common set of committers for the core
of FOP and Batik, one would essentially have to 'trust' the other
projects committers to have good judgement, and what to do if they
violate that trust? They may make good/useful contributions to the
other project, so revoking committership may overly harsh (at least for
>  http://www.apache.org/foundation/how-it-works.html#pmc-members
>  http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/www-legal-discuss/
>  http://www.apache.org/foundation/voting.html
> On 15.11.2005 13:59:45 thomas.deweese wrote:
> > Hi Jeremias,
> > Not to rain on your parade, but doesn't there need to be a vote on
> > fop-dev by committers on the release before
> > bringing it to the PMC? Also doesn't a formal vote need to run at
> > one full week? I understand your
> > desire to get the release out but...
> > Jeremias Maerki <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote on 11/14/2005 05:48:36
> > > BTW, I think I'm through with all the things I wanted to do. What's
> > > now:
> > > - write the README/release notes
> > > - Create a copy of the xdocs/trunk directory to xdocs/0.90alpha1.
> > > - do the (PMC) vote on the release.
> > > - tag and release
> > >
> > > If it's possible I'd like to start the vote tomorrow and do the
> > > around Thursday/Friday. That reasonable?
> Jeremias Maerki