Ceci wrote: > The inability of the PMC to take initiative stems from the Apache > voting process
<snip> > The current system <snip> is inappropriate for managing large projects like > Jakarta. <snip> I agree with this, I've only been a commiter since the end of last summer, and have been surprised that while the web site says.. "This committee is the official managing body of the Jakarta Project and is responsible for setting overall project direction." It does not appear very pro-active in this role. I've been subscribed to this list out of curiosity about what the PMC do, to keep a finger on the pulse as it were, and apart from the discussions about new projects and the current rash of opinion on code standards there seems to be little traffic discussing "overall project direction" Perhaps thats because the direction is not changing, are the goals of the project still the same, are the subprojects all still moving steadily forward? They seem to be, and this would be a good reason for not interfering, after all there are no deadlines except those imposed by individual projects and few imperatives of the kind which, in the commercial world, need to be enforced by PM's. > we either: > > 1) Elect a PMC with real power, power to intervene and take painful > decisions, until the next elections. In a democracy (and I *know* apache isn't that) we elect from amongst ourselves representatives whom we charge with making decisions on our behalf, for that to make any sense we have to give them the authority to make those decisons and bind ourselves to them, anything else is just posturing. > > 2) Instate a system based on referendum, where the public can directly > intervene in making laws. By "public", I mean developers with commit > rights. Always contentious, referenda are un-democratic in that they imply that the fundamental assertion of democracy (that we elect people to represent us) is flawed. IMHO (as this whole spiel is) referenda would therefore render the PMC irrelevant. However consensus decisions are *much* harder to achieve in larger groups, it would be un-realistic to expect every commiter to spend time giving every vote serious consideration, and so I favour a PMC where the elected members have made a commitment to considering the issues. > > 3) Keeps things as they are and hope for the best. Unless the goals of the project have changed, or unless a significant change is needed to either the goals or the nature of the project the existing system should continue to work, perhaps Ceci's comments stem from a feeling that change is needed of the kind only changes in PM can accomodate. If so what's wrong? and why won't the current system be able to deliver the changes needed? d. -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
