I worry a little that we're changing things that won't help anything. If there's lack of oversight right now, changing the group structure won't help attain more oversight. These are small projects here in XML land, and people only have a finite amount of time to devote to them. Making projects like AxKit the equivalent of a TLP within a cluster of other TLPs won't change the way AxKit is run.
Your last sentence is absolutely spot on the mark. But it's actually the point why the federation might be the right approach. As I read things, many (not all) of the XML projects are actually doing their own internal oversite in much the way a PMC is expected to do oversite of a TLP. I.e. reviewing code commits, planning code changes, approving releases etc.
The problem is not with what you are doing inside the sub-project, the problem is what we are doing inside the PMC to validate it. Under the bylaws it doesn't matter that the sub-project is doing everything perfectly. The PMC has to validate it. (It's all around legal oversite and liability as I understand it.)
So if we make AxKit (for example) a TLP, then you can *almost* keep doing things the way you are now. You would have to appoint a chair and PMC of your own (probably just formalising a group you already have) and report directly to the board. Even that we might be able to do as we do today - everyone reporting in a combined report once a quarter.
The difference would be that *the right people* - i.e. yourselves - have the responsibility of reviewing your own code and releases. Given you are already doing that, it seems like a win-win to me :>.
Other than that - you can change as much as you want. With the federation approach, we can all keep working together (if we so desire) within the XML web-site and mailing lists, so nothing changes there, and all us little projects can help each other out with this infrastructure stuff :>.
More tuits after you pluck them from the trees might :-)
Maybe a "Simon Says" system could help. If we want to do a release we have to ask, like asking for a new committer. It sounds kind of anal, but then so are the ASF legal requirements (for a reason - I don't mean "anal" in an insulting way).
I do admit to not feeling very close to the problems occurring here, so take what I say with a big pinch of salt.
Not at all! I tend to agree that adding new structures isn't necessarily going to solve the problem. But formalising what we currently have might.
Effectively we are simply removing a level of middle-management and letting people get on with what it is they want to do.
Cheers,
Berin
--------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
