Am hoping (but not expecting :>) that no comments means no issues?
Can we re-try the vote - maybe next week to give everyone time to comment?
Cheers,
Berin
-------- Original Message -------- Subject: Updates to charter Date: Tue, 24 Jun 2003 20:22:50 +1000 From: Berin Lautenbach <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: Apache XML General <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, pmc <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Peoples,
Done some fairly major mods to various parts of the charter to try to accomodate peoples thoughts. Have checked into CVS.
This is starting to get rather big and unwieldy. I wonder if we might be better off taking the last three sections (and a few other parts) out of the charter. A lot of this is discussed on the mission/guidelines section of the web page. Does it really need to be in the charter?
To me a charter should be the basic governance structure of the project. We can derive everything else separately.
Thoughts? +/-?
Have provided change details below, trying to quickly reference back to people's e-mails. If I have missed anything let me know.
I am _more_ than happy to put back/re-modify. All comments very welcome.
Cheers,
Berin-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
From Peter West's comments
- Added terms section - Provided reference to Incubator x No change to 5.4 - I don't think we have to state that PMC reps have to be committers? - CONTRIBUTORS - Have cut a large portion of this as it doesn't really appear appropriate in a charter. Should we have a separate page for this kind of thing? - COMMITTERS - minor changes made as indicated - INFRASTRUCTURE - No change. My feeling is that the statement states what the PMC must do. It so happens that we leverage the resources provided by infrastructure to meet this obligation. - Didn't add anything about procedures - saw this more as an infrastructure section. Again - should we have a separate page (outside charter) for this kind of thing? - DEVELOPMENT PROCESS - Left as is see below. - SUBPROJECT REQUIREMENTS - Removed GUMP piece. Should we remove the whole thing? - ARCHITECTURE - Not sure I agree. My own feeling is that architecture is actually appropriate in this instance. However happy to run with majority decision.
Ilene Seelemann
- Removed "CVS" from 8.1b (left as repositories) - 10.1. I actually kind of like having the "approved in advance" piece vague like this. Each sub-project can work in with it in whatever way fits best. If that means voting for people who are pre-approved then fine. Otherwise this is really a clause to deal with problems - if people start disagreeing with what is going on, this this clause provides "best practice" that people need to fall back on.
Jeremias Maerki
- CVS removed from entire document
Kip Hampton
- Added words "Where Appropriate" and "Where inter-related" to paragraph. Weakens the para slightly, but I think it makes it more in-line with reality.
Neil Graham
- Added some extra paragraphs around COMMITTERS to clarify inactive status. ? Should there be something about removing committers?
Berin Lautenbach
- Modified the voting in of the chair (wasn't realistic before). - Added a piece to remove PMC members who do not participate in voting for an extended period of time
--------------------------------------------------------------------- In case of troubles, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
