On Dec 28, 2003, at 4:44 PM, Stephen Colebourne wrote:
From: "Geir Magnusson Jr." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>Well this is a key point. I believe that now I am a Jakarta PMC member II think a lot of what you say presupposed some sort of onerous additional work that comes from being a part of the Jakarta PMC. I would argue that it's no different - if you are providing oversight independently of Jakarta or part of Jakarta, it's the same amount of work.
have direct responsibility for ALL subprojects. Given the breadth of Jakarta
this is a ridiculous position. So, it is more work. Much more work. For
example, I have spent much less time coding in the last 4 weeks. And thats
just plain wrong.
We need to get that view corrected, because there is *nothing* that states that every member of the PMC is *directly* responsible for ever part of every code, doc, mail list and CVS usage in Jakarta, the key word is "directly".
Think about it. How could this possibly work in ANY ASF project of any useful size? You couldn't do a Commons TLP (be it A-C or J-C) if every participant was directly and personally responsible for every shred of activity.
Here is what the ASF bylaws say :
"Subject to the direction of the Board of Directors, the chairman of each Project Management Committee shall be primarily responsible for project(s) managed by such committee, and he or she shall establish rules and procedures for the day to day management of project(s) for which the committee is responsible"
A reasonable person should *not* read this to mean the PMC chair is directly, actively responsible in that he or she must read every commit, watch ever mail list, and see every site and wiki change - rather he or she is able and required to organize the day-to-day management as he or she sees fit (subject to board approval) such that all code, site, mail and wiki's are covered by active, responsible oversight. In the event that the management does *not* do this, the chair is responsible, but that's a huge difference from the 'every shred' model.
Therefore I would think that given we have coverage of more than one committer per sub-project on the PMC, and those committers understand the oversight role and are actively performing that role, then the Jakarta PMC is compliant with the requirements of the ASF, is scalable, and puts minimal additional responsibility on those on the PMC.
Isn't that reasonable?
If I'm not careful, I'll go crazy like Robert. So I may choose to leave the
PMC. Others will too, either actually resign, or just ignore it. Oversight
is NOT increased - the basic approach of sign 'em up is flawed.
"sign 'em up" is flawed, but not for the reason above (which I think is simply a misunderstanding on your part.) It's flawed because we can't assert that those tasked with oversight (of their projects) on behalf of the ASF as PMC member is doing their job is they didn't ask to do it and/or be trained to do it. I first floated the 'deputize them all' approach on the PMC list a while ago, and I'll be the first to say that I was wrong.
The communities are the subprojects.The question is how much value you place on Jakarta as a community versus Jakarta as a website.
And the subprojects together are also a community. I'm not the only one that recognizes this.
Sorry, but I don't get you. A-C was a board invention. If it didn't existAgain, I'll suggest that Jakarta Commons and Apache Commons might illustrate a bit about what I keep [unsuccessfully] trying to say.
then J-C would be able to TLP cleanly. Perhaps you need to explain more. In
fact, perhaps you should set out in a separate thread as to where you see
Jakarta in 3-6 months time.
I'll be happy to do the latter. As for the former:
A-C was a board invention, as you note, and I think a well-intentioned one. However, after 14 months, it has a single codebase (a http client written in C).
J-C was a 'bottom-up' effort of multiple people in the Jakarta community from many *different* sub-projects that self-organized, debated independently (and incessantly) about the charter, presented the proposal to the PMC, had it approved and then rolled up their sleeves and got to work, with the resulting vibrant, productive community.
The fact that participants from multiple sub-projects were the force behind J-C (and not the PMC or the board) to me validates my assertion that Jakarta as a whole is also a community.
geir
-- Geir Magnusson Jr 203-247-1713(m) [EMAIL PROTECTED]
--------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
