On Dec 18, 2003, at 1:46 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The more I see of this discussion, the more convinced I am that the sub-projects of Jakarta should be run like "mini-TLPs". We want to leverage the marketing power of the Jakarta brand, the experience of the other Jakarta developers, and some infrastructure support (web page, CVS, mailing lists, wiki).
However, this idea that the PMC should manage individual projects as diverse as Tapestry, Lucene, ORO and BCEL is, to me, a losing proposition. I can't even envision what it means to "manage" these projects. To me, management is primarily about allocating scarce resources. For all these projects, the scarce resource is developer time and effort, and that is administered by each developer individually.
It's not management other than oversight.
All we want to do is make sure that the code and communities of the Jakarta sub-projects are healthy. The committers of each sub-project should be responsible for that. Given that we can get those committers from each sub-project on the PMC, I think we'd then have oversight covered.
No one wants to interfere with the activities of any sub-project.
From my point of view, the Jakarta PMC should be encouraging the individual projects to operate in a professional fashion, to provide advice when asked, to keep tabs on projects sufficiently to verify that they are operating as a healthy meritocracy ... and that's about it.
Yep - and have representatives report that "all is well" or if not well, get assistance. That's all.
geir
-- Geir Magnusson Jr 203-247-1713(m) [EMAIL PROTECTED]
--------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
