Hi Jeremias, 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 [1]. 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 [2]. 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 2 cents. > Where did you read this that a vote has to run a full week? AFAIK, > the normal period is 72 hours [3]. 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 one project). > [1] http://www.apache.org/foundation/how-it-works.html#pmc-members > [2] http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/www-legal-discuss/ > [3] 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 least > > 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 PM: > > > > > BTW, I think I'm through with all the things I wanted to do. What's left > > > 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 release > > > around Thursday/Friday. That reasonable? > > > > Jeremias Maerki >
