On Feb 8, 2007, at 3:18 PM, Ceki Gülcü wrote:
Michael Catanzarati is the founder of the log4cxx project. Marco
Vassura is the founder of log4php. Mark Womack served as the previous
chair of LS. I am the founder of log4j as well as the Logging Services
project.
Do you think excluding the above listed persons will serve the best
interests of the Logging Services project?
Changing the bylaws requires 2/3 majority of active PMC members.
Graduating log4net from the incubator may take 2/3 majority if you
consider it "adoption of a new codebase". Since there are currently
12 PMC members, the missing 4 would be sufficient to block all but
unanimous decisions from the other PMC members when a vote requires
2/3 majority. As a PMC member, they should be monitoring this
mailing list and I have sent them an individual email to request that
they update this mailing list on their status and inform them that
there may be upcoming votes that require their participation. I
would not want to declare them emeritus for procedural reasons
without giving them ample opportunity to make their presence known.
I'd would also like to remind you that I recently nominated a
well-respected and longtime contributor to the log4j project as a
committer only to be (regrettably) blocked for using the
"wrong" mailing list.
The log4j project lost an opportunity to add a valuable contributor to
its list of committers. Of course, you could still put your weight
behind that nomination. (It's not too late.)
I assume that you are discussing the discussion on
[EMAIL PROTECTED] on 2006-10-25 and following. I can't
quote your message from the private list, but my response was:
I haven't found the email that described to migration away from
pmc@ mailing lists to private@ mailing lists, but I believe the
general idea was private@ should only be used when the discussion
required confidentiality. Voting on a new committer or PMC member
might be a little sensitive, but you'd want to have a public record
of the vote and so it should be on one of the publicly archived
mailing lists. Also, if a person does not have a history of
submitting patches that would allow us to judge his code-fu, but
you believe that he can contribute to project governance, then
possibly voting on him as a PMC member makes more sense (which
would occur on the [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list).
Let's move this discussion to [email protected] if you
wish to talk about process or call a vote on PMC membership or
[email protected] if you wish to call a vote for log4j
commit rights. If there are reasons that you believe this should
remain confidential, discussion can remain here or better, be held
on the general mailing lists but with specific names avoided.
http://www.apache.org/dev/pmc.html#mailing-list-naming-policy use of
the private mailing list and specifically mention that "nominees for
project, project committee or Foundation membership" can be held on
[EMAIL PROTECTED] I did not have that link at the time and
was recalling on just a general impression that private@ should
rarely be used.
The LS bylaws state that a new committer is voted on my the active
members of the relevant sub-project and as private@ is only available
to PMC members it can't be a forum for a subproject vote without
excluding non-PMC committers. It does appear that you could nominate
an individual as a PMC member on private@ and hold all the
conversation about the individual on the private list.
