From: "Geir Magnusson Jr." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > 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". As a PMC member, I should care whether there is a new Tapestry release, or a new Lucene committer. These are PMC votes (or should be). But I don't care (especially ;-). Thus there is a tension between my mandated responsibility and my actual interests.
This aspect of 'do I care' is key. I read every vote on J-C, I may not choose to vote (since adding lots of +0's wastes space), but I care about the release or new committer. But I don't care about Lucene. Not one jot. Yet I have equal responsibility for it. This just isn't right. All I have heard from the original ASF projects indicate to me that the PMC should represent one codebase and one tight community. Anything else leads to a layer of management separate from the codebase (aka Jakarta PMC). All the current debates exist because we have a layer of management which we do not need. These debates waste vast amounts of time and energy. Thus PMC members are given the choice: - debate/manage continuously and don't code, or - code and ignore the PMC I'm unusual in that I'm bothering putting any effort at all into the former. It won't be long before I'll give up and do the latter. Your POV will win on the PMC because everyone else has better things to do than argue incesantly. > 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? No. What you are arguing for is just not human nature. As long as there is a PMC away from the dev list, with other people from the dev list, with other responsibilities and issues, people will not associate with it. People look after what they own, and don't care about what they don't own. They may be on the PMC in name, but that simply isn't enough. It really isn't. > 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. The question that we cannot know the answer to (without a time machine) is whether the same result would have occurred if Jakarta had not existed. ie. Is J-C a product of Jakarta, or a product of the need for shared Java code. You believe its the former, I wasn't around so can't really comment, however I see no great reason why exactly the same J-C couldn't have occurred without Jakarta. Stephen --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
