Geir Magnusson Jr. wrote:

> Noel J. Bergman wrote:
> > There is a difference between a hierarchy and a confederation.  There
> > is absolutely nothing that says that we cannot have:
> >
> >   Jakarta PMC: responsible for jakarta-site/jakarta-site2
> >   Tomcat PMC: tomcat and related code
> >   Struts PMC: struts and related code
> >   Jakarta Commons PMC: ...
> >   Tapestry PMC: ...
> >   ...
> >
> > All without a single change to the Jakarta domain.
> >
> > No one should feel that there is any relationship between the
> > Foundation's legal structure, and e-mail/web addresses.  We
> > have had this confirmed already by both Greg and Sam.  The
> > above *is* an acceptable solution to the Board.  The question
> > is whether or not it is an acceptable one to us.

> This is nothing I would encourage.  There's really no question that
> it's legal.  But it does then make Jakarta a website, rather than a
> community, IMO.  I'd rather see the community.

I want to see a community, too.  But I see two issues:

  1) to me a community is a people with common goals and interests.
     As Howard illustrated, and others have commented, that is not
     the case throughout Jakarta.

  2) the PMC is responsible for the immediate oversight of the project.

Not every "subproject" needs to have its own PMC, but every project needs
one with immediate oversight.  Jakarta Commons is a nice example of a
Community that takes collective responsibility for a diverse set of
unrelated projects.  Every Committer sees every e-mail (except for HTTP
Client, which feels like it is more off on its own), has access to every
piece of code, and can vote on every item.  When the recent IP issue came up
in J-C, if it had a PMC properly connected to it could have taken care of
the situation immediately, rather than sending the person involved on a
quest for oversight.  That illustrates the difference in approach.  You
don't go find the PMC.  The PMC *is* the core group developing the project.

I see the creation of these PMCs as doing very little other than moving de
jure decision-making to where the de facto decision-making ALREADY EXISTS.
I do not see this as being negative with respect to Community.  Can you
explain why you feel otherwise?

There is an alternative: all, or most, active Committers would come onto the
Jakarta PMC, and there would be one entry in the CVS avail file so that
every Committer has access to every Jakarta project.  But I, personally,
don't see that as doing anything for making Tapestry feel any more a part of
the same Community as they feel today.

In any event, those are two possible structures.  We agree that either way,
we need to communicate to the new PMC members their responsibilities in
terms of ensuring that the IP remains clean.

        --- Noel

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

Reply via email to