My feeling is xml should do two things, which hopefully both will make sense, and will address the issue:
-- Split the ASF organizational structure up into 3ish PMC's to cover all the existing XML projects.
This should give the required level of oversight without overwhelming the board. Also, I'm feeling that we can find 3 useful groups to split into; perhaps along functional lines like below (unless someone can point out some obvious community lines that would fit better?)
The Xerces', Xalans, and xml-commons are the base of the XML stack.
Batik and graphics types in another project.
DB-related projects in another spot.
Where does forrest fit? This is an important one, because we use it for the website, and is an important 'showpiece' of much of our technology (yes, there's a reason we go through so much seeming rigamarole to build our website: eating our own really cool dogfood).
Personally, I'd like to keep them all under xml.apache.org since that's simplest, but whatever is fine.
-- Clearly document some procedures for subproject management.
This will both help with some committer confusion we've seen evidenced as well as providing for better 'provable' oversight.
Note that here my feeling is that we should put some proposals on general@, wait for feedback, and then the PMC should simply decide the policies and codify them.
Given that the issue of oversight is an organizational one, the PMC is the body that should decide the final polices. Yes, I want committer community input: but both because oversight is the PMC's job, and because it'll take a lot less time if we have a smaller group doing the work. (of course we have the question of if it's the current PMC or the new 3 PMC's who set this...)
- Shane on the plane
--------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
