See inline. Andrew C. Oliver wrote: > > It is fair to say that not many POI people participate in Jakarta. > However, to add perspective we never joined the "Jakarta as it is" -- we > joined Jakarta as it was...and one day this formed around us. It is > fair to criticize our build...it is pretty rusty and yucky. I do > however thing focusing too much on it is a bit well...mean. Nick has > been doing a great job and a lot of work. (I on the other hand will > have to merge my patches into SVN before I can even commit them since > they're off of CVS :-P ). However it was his first release. Moreover, > Apache's "release policies" have evolved considerably since the last > official release and none of us have a valid signed key...that needs to > be rectified (laziness, don't like conventions where all the cool key > signing parties). We're not the only one's guilty of kinds of neglect. > Our own Marc Johnson (who cofounded the project) has been extremely > frustrated at the lack of responsiveness in getting his access/etc in > order and no one at POI seems to be able to jerk the right chain in > Apache to make that happen (and I think he requested from this PMC with > no effect). So much that he's given up!
First of all : Nick is not the one that got blamed and was given credit for the good work he is doing at POI. The real point here was oversight, which sparked the idea of mentoring. I didn't have a clue about Marc Johnson to be honest. And POI shouldn't jerk the right chain the VP of Jakarta should do that, only this VP didn't know about Marc Johnson :) (maybe just bad reading on my part though). I prefer to restart a vote to get him aboard, or you can do the honors yourself (meaning POI) when POI is TLP (although if you take that path that process will take even longer) > > In any case, legal issues aside (which have to a good degree abated, but > Let's leave that aside for the moment. > I therefore propose this: > > * Jakarta PMC has the responsibility to not call more votes on > restructuring POI during the next X months. (Access or otherwise) We need to set a date on this (see below about the board). BTW this was the only vote that was in my planning to be called, so no other votes will be called :) The steps after this vote was passed, wouldn't need any votes (as far as I can oversee now). > > * POI committers have responsibility for achieving the proper oversight > procedures and putting out a new release in the next X months That is what every project does / should do. The problem was that this was not happening. As Stephen already said, the Jarkarta PMC (and me personally) are responsible for whatever you do at POI as long you are at Jakarta. So with vote results, the actual release, new committers and other issues, you need to inform the PMC, so they have the ability to check that everything is ok. (just want to add this specifically, although I don't think you meant to specifically exclude this) > > * POI committers have responsibility for putting together a TLP proposal > and working out a consensus. Agreed. Maybe we should poll the board if they have any conditions, since they are the actual body that needs to approve the establishment of the POI Project. I'll ping them and see if they have time to talk about this on Wednesday. I'll let everyone know if there is anything to report from that front. Mvgr, Martin --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
