As some of you may be aware, we asked the board to comment on how involved the XML PMC should be in releases being made by the XML sub-projects. This was discussed at the board meeting, and Dirk came back with the response below (which is being forwarded in line with his OK in the 2nd last para).
The basic thrust is that the PMC needs to have more active oversite of all code being committed and released within XML.
Dirk has given two suggestions
- grow the PMC and split into sub-groups, with each sub-group having responsibility around code and releases of a nominated subset of sub-projects; or
- getting the current PMC more involved in releases and code commits of the sub-projects. This might involve formal review e-mail lists etc.
There are other options, and it may be that no single option makes sense for all sub-projects. For example Xerces(C/J/P) probably has enough active committers to grow PMC membership to 4-6, who could provide direct oversite and report back to the broader PMC. (Does that make it a TLP I wonder :>.)
That approach won't work for xml-commons or xml-security who have fairly low numbers of people, so maybe we need to aggregate a few together for review purposes. (Note that this would not imply a visible aggregation - they would still be separate in terms of names etc.)
Anyway - the above are just musings for the moment. Am *very* interested in seeing all suggestions. I am happy to write something up as a response to the board, and write up any processes we think are necessary, but I think we need a full discussion by all xml@ committers/contributors here in general@ first.
As a final thought - whatever we do, we need to think about how we minimise overhead on all concerned, whilst ensuring we are meeting the expectations of the board.
Cheers,
BerinDirk-Willem van Gulik wrote:
PMC,
At the last board meeting we discussed your question about oversight. And we agree that we have a puzzle here.
What follows is not exactly a black and white answer - but more some thoughs towards a solution. This because we recognize that the XML group (like just about every other group) is special in some respects and does not fit the mold perfectly. So do not take any of the text below as a sign that the XML pmc is doing things fundamentally wrong or badly - it is just that something is ill fitting.
Now the key issue is that the board expects the PMC to carry out active oversight with respect to their project(s). This essentially mean that we exect the PMC to catch issues, say a release which is made without sufficient +1's votes or lack of code review and thus be very close to the code literally on a day to day basis.
It is our opinion that in actual practice that means that any PMC will either need an extremely vigilant committer in each project, or, more realistically several. The latter has the added advantage that controversial issues are more likely to be reported even if the reporter is party to that issue. And because of this we consider just a single representative on the low side. Having said that - it is of perhaps possible to offset this single person issue by having very regular, and well documented, meetings with very explicit mailing list archive review cycles by the other PMC members.
Now for this the number of people on the PMC may grow to be virtually all committers, like in some other parts of the ASF. However this brings the additional risk that if the group is very large the feeling of resonsibility dillute; and that the level of oversight actually reduces as no one feels personally responsible.
Now given the size of the XML project - the sheer number of committers and the large number of projecs - the above may simply never be realistic.
So one thing we would like to ask the xml pmc to consider (or discuss on the XML general list)
-> splitting the xml PMC into three parts as to make the scope more managable.
and then
-> aim to have 3 to NumberOfCommitters on a PMC for each sub project.
This does not mean that the XML project needs to be spliced 'visibly' - and I could imagine a virtual aggregation so that [EMAIL PROTECTED] and xml.apache.org continue to exist.
But as said above - that is just one suggestion - other options could revolve around the current PMC but having very regular well documented review sessions. But the key property of any solution is that we, as the board, want to 'see' realistic acitve oversight happening.
So what we expect from you folks is think this over - feel free to move it to general@ and/or your committer if you feel that is a more appropriate venue - and ideally create a position by the next board meeting, or the januari board meeting by the latest.
And again - do not take any of the above as a vote of no convidence, we are at this point not seriously worried - but we do want to see how we can improve things long term and make things better.
Thanks,
Dw.
--------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
