On Wed, 02 Jan 2002 06:03:43 -0800, Sam Ruby wrote: > Let's all take a moment to review: > > http://www.godwinslaw.com/
Amusing but not very pertinent to the discussion. No one exchanged accusations of Nazism. Although I recognize that your goal was probably to diffuse the tension. As things stand today, the Jakarta project is a loose assembly of subprojects united by a common license, a common web site and a common PMC. Here is what http://jakarta.apache.org/site/roles.html has to say on the Project Management Committee (PMC): This committee is the official managing body of the Jakarta Project and is responsible for setting overall project direction. The PMC currently follows a non-interventionist policy. Its actions in the past year have been limited to accepting or rejecting new subprojects which is inadequate for setting the overall project direction, the stated goal of the PMC. The inability of the PMC to take initiative stems from the Apache voting process where every member has a veto power. This limits the decision power of the PMC to consensual decisions only. The Jakarta PMC is averse of discussing things in private in fear that its legitimacy might be challenged. IMHO, if the legitimacy of the PMC is challenged, let the challenger wait and suffer until the next PMC elections. I believe the next elections are scheduled for February or March 2002. The current system of veto based voting might be appropriate for development but is inappropriate for managing large projects like Jakarta. Either we admit it and act now or watch Jakarta become SourceForge-elite, an assembly of excellent projects but with no common purpose. Jakarta does not have a benevolent dictator where the puck stops. Recognizing this fact, we either: 1) Elect a PMC with real power, power to intervene and take painful decisions, until the next elections. 2) Instate a system based on referendum, where the public can directly intervene in making laws. By "public", I mean developers with commit rights. To avoid voting on trivialities, a referendum would require the support of at least five committers to acquire the "valid" status. After a possible but short delay, a valid referendum is submitted to popular vote. The result of the vote determines whether the referendum is accepted or rejected. An accepted referendum becomes law of the land. To avoid keeping voting on the same issue time and again, a wait period of 12 months is necessary between two referenda on the same or nearly the same issue. 3) Keeps things as they are and hope for the best. Regards, Ceki -- Ceki G�lc� - http://qos.ch -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
