On Dec 18, 2003, at 4:41 PM, Noel J. Bergman wrote:
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.
I think it's how you define them. And that wasn't quite how I read Howards mail.
2) the PMC is responsible for the immediate oversight of the project.
But the key thing is not every person is responsible for every aspect of very project. What we need is a structure that can reasonably provide traceable oversight by the board. Thus, if the PMC has solid, accountable coverage of every codebase, by more than one individual who a) understands their responsibilities and b) actively works to meet those responsibilities, we have the oversight issue covered.
Someone will correct me if I'm wrong, but as the board doesn't yet dictate how the structure must be, just that oversight is demonstrable and complete, I think we'll be just fine.
[SNIP]
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?
Because with the majority of Jakarta committers on the Jakarta PMC, you meet this exactly w/o having 'sub-project PMCs'.
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.
There is no relationship between CVS access and PMC membership. Given that enough of us have avail modification rights, in the event of a 'CVS emergency' we could easily do what needed to be done. There's no reason to grant every committer access to ever codebase.
[SNIP]
In any event, those are two possible structures.
I think one is a structure for a community, the other is just a large number of TLPs with a shared website.
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.
Of course.
--- Noel
--------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
-- Geir Magnusson Jr 203-247-1713(m) [EMAIL PROTECTED]
--------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
