Martin Cooper wrote:
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


>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

>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.

Yes, but I thought I had a say, by way of binding votes, in the project I was elected in, and was responsible for the future of the project and now that doesn't seem true either. I haven't been around for too long but this whole thing seems like a problem of misunderstanding of rights and responsibilities. Not that I have a good understanding :)

It seems that oversight is the only extra responsibility of a PMC member, and it seems oversight is about making sure that contributed code conforms to IP rights. If so, may be somebody has to explain why the CLA is not good enough to ensure the acceptance of this responsibility.

I think Ted's proposal is not forcing all committers to become PMC members but rather extending the membership to every one of them and gives them an option to opt out. I don't think there should be any criteria, other than the willingness of the committer, to become a PMC member. This proposal fulfills that and makes the process faster, I think.


PS. I think my thoughts follow the right[eous] path ;)

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




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 :)


--------------------------------------------------------------------- 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]

To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Reply via email to