On Thu, 18 Dec 2003 10:23:25 -0500 (EST)
Henri Yandell wrote:

> Agreed. Andy's highlighted the issue and I'm sure there'll be more
> aggressiveness on pushing threads that don't need to remain closed to this
> open forum.

About the issue of openness and closeness:

board@ is *public* for all the ASF members. (Any ASF
members can be a *read only member* to the board@ list)
board@ is open list? close list?

WS (WebServices) project discuss most of the important
issues at [EMAIL PROTECTED] and [EMAIL PROTECTED] at the same time.
[EMAIL PROTECTED] is open list? close list?


I think that jakarta should choose an appropriate method
which suffices for most of the jakarta committers' needs.

For example:
Create topics for discussion -- PMC list
Vote -- general@ (or another appropriate list : important issues)
        PMC list (trivial issues)
Report to all the jakarta committers -- general@


Also, please read this (Roy T. Fielding said @ incubator list
at Fri, 26 Sep 2003) >> all the jakarta committers and PMC members


> A release requires 3 +1 and a majority of those voting, wherein
> the only people allowed to vote are the PMC responsible for that
> code.  In other words, the usual rules apply -- it is simply harder
> to get the votes.


> According to the bylaws, the only people authorized to make 
> decisions
> on behalf of the ASF (including the decision to release code to the 
> general
> public) are officers or the PMC responsible for the project.  All other
> votes are to be ignored or considered advisory only, and no I don't care
> how long some of our umbrella projects have been ignoring that fact.

It seems that most of the committers in jakarta do not know
this fact. Before the discussion of *openness/closeness*, 
I think we should have common understanding on this.


-- Tetsuya. ([EMAIL PROTECTED])

To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Reply via email to