On 23 July 2018 at 15:12, Henk P. Penning <penn...@uu.nl> wrote: > On Sat, 21 Jul 2018, Hervé BOUTEMY wrote: > >> Date: Sat, 21 Jul 2018 19:17:03 +0200 >> From: Hervé BOUTEMY <herve.bout...@free.fr> >> To: general@attic.apache.org >> Subject: Re: no projects in the Attic >> >> I like that there is no project in the Attic: there is only static >> codebases >> (and other types of assets like mailing lists or sites), with nobody to >> make >> them evolve, then no project (project means evolution) >> >> IMHO, recreating frozen projects is not a good idea >> >> it's a question of wording to better represent the semantic behind Attic: >> >> project = codebase + community to make it evolve and a PMC to manage the >> evolution > > > ... now separate PMC and PROJECT
PMC == Project Management Committee. i.e. the committee that manages one or more projects. A project is "an individual or collaborative enterprise that is planned to achieve a particular aim." i.e. it is a group of people (committers) working on a particular product (code-base). A PMC exists to coordinate the projects under its control. There may be several projects which may overlap in terms of personnel. e.g. Creadur has RAT, Tentacles, Whisker There are 3 projects working to produce separate products; some people may work on all 3, some on only one Similarly in Commons there are a lot of products. Many of them are no longer active and the product is marked 'Dormant', i.e. there is no longer a project team which is producing that product. > -- it is the PMC that has a 'community' > (members, committers, developers, users) > -- a PROJECT (as an entity on it's own) has no community ; > if/when a PROJECT moves from one PMC to another, > it happily lives on, cared for by another community I disagree - it is the product (code-base) that lives on as part of another project. The new project may have different aims from the original project. e.g. I imagine the project team developing XMLBeans as part of POI will (mainly) focus on the parts that relate to POI. > evolution : > > -- when a project enters the Attic, > we 'evolve' it to a 'retired' project There is no project at this point. > -- then we wait for it to be revived ; > if/when that happens, we 'evolve' the project some more : > we 'revive' it in some other PMC. > > I maintain that this is a consistent world-view. > > Regards, > > HPP > > > ------------------------------------------------------------ _ > Henk P. Penning, ICT-beta R Uithof MG-403 _/ \_ > Faculty of Science, Utrecht University T +31 30 253 4106 / \_/ \ > Leuvenlaan 4, 3584CE Utrecht, NL F +31 30 253 4553 \_/ \_/ > http://www.staff.science.uu.nl/~penni101/ M penn...@uu.nl \_/ > >> we should perhaps rephrase: a project is not Attic'ed, but a former >> project's >> codebase (+ site + mailing lists) is Attic'ed because community >> disappeared >> >> Regards, >> >> Hervé >> >> Le vendredi 20 juillet 2018, 09:45:47 CEST Henk P. Penning a écrit : >>> >>> Hi Attic, >>> >>> FYI ; for the record. >>> >>> Last wednesday I attended the Board meeting ; >>> this is recommended for new chairs ; also, >>> the board would discuss Attic's last report. >>> >>> To my surprise I've learned that formally >>> there are no "projects in the Attic". >>> >>> The reason is that the board resolution that terminates >>> a PMC, also terminates the Project. Because the project >>> does not (formally) exist, it can't be in the Attic ; >>> so, there are no projects in the Attic. >>> >>> This (formal) worldview is at variance with our charter, >>> and it is not how we work, or what we present to the world. >>> >>> So, I took the liberty to ask the board to >>> -- pass a resolution (see below, lines marked with '*') >>> which (formally) re-establishes 'our' projects again, >>> -- in the future, move projects into the Attic, >>> instead of terminating them >>> so we can keep on working as we have upto now. >>> >>> I hope the board will accept this ; it would erase >>> the difference between the 'formal' worldview, >>> and what we do and present to the world. >>> >>> Regards, >>> >>> Henk Penning >>> >>> PS : I hope I didn't violate accepted procedure ; >>> If not, I hope this post will correct that. >>> >>> ------------------------------------------------------------ _ >>> Henk P. Penning, ICT-beta R Uithof MG-403 _/ \_ >>> Faculty of Science, Utrecht University T +31 30 253 4106 / \_/ \ >>> Leuvenlaan 4, 3584CE Utrecht, NL F +31 30 253 4553 \_/ \_/ >>> http://www.staff.science.uu.nl/~penni101/ M penn...@uu.nl \_/ >>> >>> ---------- Forwarded message ---------- >>> Date: Thu, 19 Jul 2018 21:11:03 +0200 >>> From: Henk P. Penning <penn...@uu.nl> >>> To: Apache Board <bo...@apache.org> >>> Subject: Re: XMLBeans => POI and decision making >>> >>> On Thu, 19 Jul 2018, Jim Jagielski wrote: >>>> >>>> Date: Thu, 19 Jul 2018 13:05:54 +0200 >>>> From: Jim Jagielski <j...@jagunet.com> >>>> To: Apache Board <bo...@apache.org> >>>> Subject: Re: XMLBeans => POI and decision making >>>> >>>> As the canonical sources of truth, board resolutions are pretty high >>>> on the list. If a board resolution, which was voted on and passed by >>>> the board, says that a project was terminated, well, it was terminated. >>> >>> >>> Great ; that's clear. >>> >>> The (formal) 'truth' is that, at the moment, PMC Attic >>> is tasked with "oversight over the software developed >>> by the Apache XMLBeans Project" [Board minutes 17 Jul 2013] >>> https://whimsy.apache.org/board/minutes/XMLBeans.html >>> >>> I think I must ask the board to pass a resolution effectively >>> relieving PMC Attic of this task, because the XMLbeans >>> codebase is now managed by PCM Poi. >>> >>>> For convenience referring to Apache Foo as being moved to >>>> the Attic or lumping (ex) projects under Apache Attic is simply >>>> that... convenience. It is much easier to say "Apache Foo is >>>> now in the Attic" (colloquial) than "The Apache Foo project no >>>> longer exists but the codebase which comprised the project >>>> is now under the official oversight of the Apache Attic and the >>>> software can be found there". >>> >>> >>> * The discrepancy 'truth' vs 'colloquial' is ... inconvenient, >>> * and confusing for many people. It can me remedied easily. >>> >>> * I propose that the board passes a resolution which >>> * -- establishes (retired) projects : >>> * -- "Apache Abdera Project" >>> * -- "Apache ACE Project" >>> * -- "Apache Avalon Project" >>> * -- ... >>> * -- "Apache XML Project" >>> * -- tasks PMC "Apache Attic Project" with the oversight the projects >>> * -- pursuant to bylaws of the Foundation >>> >>> * In the future, the board 'termination' resolution should >>> * -- terminate the PMC XXX [as is usual] >>> * -- terminate the office of "VP, Apache XXX" [as is usual] >>> * -- task PMC Attic with the oversight of Project XXX >>> >>> * Note that this : >>> * ... merely sanctions current, established, accepted practice >>> * ... cleans up the process, a little >>> * ... hopefully avoids some endless, confused discussions in the >>> future >>> >>> Thanks ; regards, >>> >>> Henk Penning >>> >>> ------------------------------------------------------------ _ >>> Henk P. Penning, ICT-beta R Uithof MG-403 _/ \_ >>> Faculty of Science, Utrecht University T +31 30 253 4106 / \_/ \ >>> Leuvenlaan 4, 3584CE Utrecht, NL F +31 30 253 4553 \_/ \_/ >>> http://www.staff.science.uu.nl/~penni101/ M penn...@uu.nl \_/ >>> >>>> As for the POI stuff, well, IMHO POI lacks the ability and >>>> power and authority to "unretire" XMLBeans: XMLBeans was >>>> not "retired". It was terminated >>>> >>>> (https://www.apache.org/foundation/records/minutes/2013/board_minutes_201 >>>> 3_07_17.txt). That was an action by the board. A PMC can not reverse >>>> nor >>>> overturn that on its own. Also, the binding of a project and a PMC is >>>> also >>>> something that the bylaws clearly state (Section 6.3)[1] is something >>>> that must be done by the board and via a resolution. >>>> >>>> 1: "Each Project Management Committee shall be responsible for the >>>> >>>> active management of one or more projects identified by resolution >>>> of the Board of Directors" >> >> >> >> >> >
