Hi Thomas

Don't take what I wrote too much by the letter. Always add a little
common sense. See below.

On 15.11.2005 15:49:39 thomas.deweese wrote:
> 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.

I've always intended to CC fop-dev for the release vote, but the vote
will happen on [EMAIL PROTECTED] Everyone from the project is invited
to vote and to express their opinion. If one of the non-PMC committers
has a justified objection, nobody is ever going to ignore that. At least,
I will see to that. In the end, though, and from a legal POV, it's the
PMC's call. That's also why I sent out another note that all committers
who care about the project are invited to join the PMC. It's what the
board encourages nowadays.

> > 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.

It's not my call, it's the PMC's. It's only my call when I see something
go extremely wrong like it happened in the Avalon project. If we as a
PMC want to establish such an additional requirement, we can of course
do that. Every PMC member is free to propose something like that. We'll
then discuss it on the [EMAIL PROTECTED] list and if necessary vote on
it.

But as I said, adding some common sense, an objection from a committer
won't be ignored, so I don't think such an additional rule is strictly
necessary.

> > 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.

Fair enough. It's certainly a bad sign if somebody would want to rush
through a vote when someone who will certainly object to the matter at
hand was away. On the other side, you have to keep the project alive and
always having to wait on the last person holds things up unnecessarily.
That's why it's good if committers drop a short note to the list when
they are away for a longer period.

> > 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.

Of course. My current focus is to go towards the rules the board wants
to see followed, foremost of all: better oversight.

> Especially
> because in my mind the constituent projects under the XML-Graphics PMC
> are probably more independent than many.

Please explain. I'm a little worried about that comment.

>  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.

Seriously, Thomas, such a thing will never happen. You know that the PMC
members theoretically have write access to the Batik codebase but no
non-Batik PMC member is ever going to touch the Batik codebase without
invitation. It's a matter of respect. If this would be a real problem we
would need to split up XML Graphics into two projects.

> > 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).

I fully agree with you. I never challenged that personally and will only
bring this on the table for real if the board would officially demand
such a move. I see no reason for us not to have two different committer
sets and for a FOP committer not to have to go through the same process
as a contributor to become a Batik committer.

I hope that clears things up a bit.

> > [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
> > 



Jeremias Maerki

Reply via email to