On Tue, 30 Dec 2003, Ted Husted wrote: > ----- Original message ----------------------------------------> > From: "Geir Magnusson Jr." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: Jakarta General List <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Received: Sun, 28 Dec 2003 16:05:11 -0500 > Subject: Re: [PROPOSAL] Proactively encourage TLP status > > <SNIP/> > > >I never understand why you keep doing this. There is no 'schism' > >between the PMC and the community, and no one is proposing it. > > >I hate to "appeal to authority" because the ASF charter does provide a > >healthy bit of freedom for any given PMC, but for example, if we want > >to follow the model of the httpd project, from which the ASF bylaws > >were fashioned, and I know you are a vocal proponent of the 'ASF Way', > >it is my understanding they invite committers onto the PMC after some > >time after receiving committership when it's clear that is appropriate > >for that person. Committing != oversight. > > >There are people who are committers that may not wish to participate on > >the PMC. We want everyone to, but if they aren't *interested* in doing > >it, putting them on the PMC achieves nothing, and actually, IMO, > >weakens the PMC. There are all sorts of valid reasons to not want to > >be on the PMC, I suppose, and we should never stop inviting that > >person. > > >100% should be the goal, not the requirement. > > ---- > > The "schism" is that the PMC did not elect our committers. In the normal > course, the body that elects the committers also decides which > committers (or other interested parties) merit inclusion in the PMC. > > However, Jakarta has not done things in the normal course. The PMC did > not select most of the committers: the subproject communities did. And > when our community selected the committers they expected that these > individuals would be the ones actively managing the codebase. The > community expected these individuals to have the rights and > responsibilities we now abscribe only to the PMC.
This doesn't seem quite right to me. I agree that when we have voted in a new committer, both the existing committers and the new committer have had the same expectations with respect to their rights and responsibilities *within the sub-project*. While those rights and responsibilities may be the same ones that apply to members of the PMC, the domain over which they apply is very different. I don't think it would be right to turn around now, and tell a committer on sub-project X "oh, by the way, you're now part of the PMC and that means that you are (collectively) responsible for all of Jakarta". That doesn't meet the expectations *I* originally had at all, when I first became a Jakarta committer myself. Foisting additional responsibility on committers doesn't seem like the right way to go, to me. Allowing - even encouraging - them to take on the additional responibilities of a PMC member would fit much better with *my* original expectations, at least. -- Martin Cooper > > I believe from the ASF perspective > > committing==voting > > and > > committing==oversight > > Every time a committer commits, they vote for the code they commit. Most > often, it a vote subject to lazy consensus, and in rare cases it might > not be binding. But, it is vote nonetheless. > > Every time a committer commits, they either donate code to the ASF or > facilitate a donation, and they incur the obligation to ensure, to the > best of their ability, that this is IP that can be donated to the ASF. > > If we have a committer that does not accept these obligations, then a > misunderstanding has occurred, and such committers should step down. The > ASF does not grant write-access lightly. I think people understand that. > > In the normal course, virtually all ASF committers are PMC members, > because its the committers make the decisions and do the work. > > It is true that on occasion an ASF committer will not yet be member of > the project PMC. Their votes may not be binding, and their commits will > be scrutinized by PMC members (which is to say other members of the > development team). But, in due course, the PMC that made them a > committer also makes them a member. > > When our community elected all of our committers, it was with the > understanding that they were the ones with binding votes, that they were > the decision makers, that the Jakarta Committers were, in practice, the > Jakarta PMC. > > In my humble opinion, it is the duty of the PMC to now ratify the > decisions our community has already made. Since we now know that the PMC > is *not* a steering committee and is in fact the active managers of the > codebase, we are obligated to finish the job our community started: give > the committers the legal rights and responsibility that we always > believed they already had. > > Make the committers the PMC, because they are the only true PMC that we > have ever had. > > Each and every one of our committers have earned their stripe. They have > all proven to the community that they are thoughtful, responsible > self-starters capable of managing our codebase on the community's > behalf. These are the individuals that have been creating, maintaining > and releasing the products we all cherish. These are the individuals > that have been doing the true work of the PMC. > > Where things have gone wrong, they have gone wrong because we were still > using a "bootstrap" PMC that excluded all but a few of our decision > makers. I'm sure that there are Jakarta committers that would be > unwilling to serve on a "bootstrap" PMC, but serving on a true, > inclusive PMC may be a different matter. > > Right now, the only plan seems to be to nominate committers one-by-one > on the PMC list. I'm just saying that we shouldn't play favorites. I > believe all Jakarta committers have already earned membership in the > PMC; we should tender the offer to every Jakarta committer and let each > decision-maker decide for himself or herself. > > If the consensus is that the "bootstrap" PMC will continue to hand-pick > which of our duly-elected committers are promoted to the PMC, and which > are not, then so be it. But, personally, I think that process is nothing > but busy work. The community has already decided. Let's ratify the > community's decisions and let Jakarta be whatever Jakarta wants to be. > > But 'nuff said, I have a release to co-manage :) > > -Ted. > > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
