My only concern about Lucene (to use your example) is that the code that comes into the ASF's CVS is free from any problems of provenance, and that the releases are done with the support of the Lucene community, and I would be comfortable w/ that if I knew that the active participants of the Lucene community were on the PMC and understood what the PMC does.
(Note that we are not advocating any layer of management separate from the codebase, and have not had that to date.)
As I think that your view of your responsibilities as a PMC members is mistaken. I'll ask for a clarification of the responsibilities from someone outside of Jakarta w/ no stake in this debate. I too have no interest in being forced to be involved w/ any project other than those I choose to participate in.
geir
On Dec 28, 2003, at 7:05 PM, Stephen Colebourne wrote:
From: "Geir Magnusson Jr." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>As a PMC member, I should care whether there is a new Tapestry release, or aWe 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".
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 oneNo. What you are arguing for is just not human nature. As long as there is a
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?
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 question that we cannot know the answer to (without a time machine) isThe 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.
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]
-- Geir Magnusson Jr 203-247-1713(m) [EMAIL PROTECTED]
--------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
