Hi Berin,
Much thanks for your efforts in helping this discussion get started
again--it did need a shot in the arm!
And I really hate to have to push back, but I think it's important to
decide on what the "lay of the land" in the new Xerces world will look
like, before formally throwing the status quo over the side. And there's
still some issues about what that territory needs to look like that have to
be hammered out before we can go there.
I've made clear the problems I have with Andy's suggestions in my note to
him, so I won't spend time reiterating here; you can guess that I think we
need to carry forward the differences between the Xerces implementations.
I'm sympathetic to Andy's desire for plenty of room for products based on
these implementations; and I'd be quite happy to defer the decision on how
that should look to some later date.
Cheers!
Neil
Neil Graham
XML Parser Development
IBM Toronto Lab
Phone: 905-413-3519, T/L 969-3519
E-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Berin Lautenbach
<[EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
mes.org> cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL
PROTECTED],
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
05/09/2004 05:43 Subject: Re: [VOTE]: motion to
transform Xerces into a top-level project as a member
AM of the "federation" of XML projects
Please respond to
pmc
Andy Clark wrote:
> That's where we disagree, I guess. I consider all the parser
> implementations as "Xerces", the TLP. They are built, packaged,
> and shipped separately but I still consider them all the same
> thing at that level. With that view, Xerces-* are all "Xerces".
> Then the sub-projects are collective units below that (e.g.
> HTML). Does that make more sense?
<Much deleted>
OK. It seems to me that the whole thing is bogging down in
sub-projects. And it strikes me that the focus is there because
everyone is so used to XML where a sub-project is a "big thing"(TM).
The reason it's such a big thing in XML is because they are all really
TLPs. So we put all this control around them when really we should have
just bounced them up a level (as we are doing now).
IMHO they should not be the focus of attention for Xerces (at least at
the moment). When you get to creating sub-projects - *then* look at
what it means structurally for the project and just go with what works
best at the time.
So - what I've done is take Neil's words from a month or so back and put
them on the nagoya wiki. (I know - smack my hand, we are supposed to be
using the new one :>.)
Have a look at :
http://nagoya.apache.org/wiki/apachewiki.cgi?XMLProjectPages/XercesCharterDiscussion
I have taken out *nearly* every reference to any kind of sub-project.
The thinking is "document what's there today". Feel free to hack it
around and modify it until it meets your needs. Personally I'd cut it
down even more, but that's your call :>.
That will provide you a draft to allow you to take the resolution to the
board. Then once you are a TLP, you can either approve it or modify it
to your needs.
NOTE : This does *not* have to approved for you to become a TLP. I am
simply trying to facilitate an area that seems to be an issue!
I have also put the draft resolution for the board at :
http://nagoya.apache.org/wiki/apachewiki.cgi?XMLProjectPages/XercesResolutionDiscussion
NOTE : This *does* have to be approved (by the board) for you to become
a TLP, so the next things to do are :
1. Decide on the initial PMC
2. Decide on the initial PMC Chair.
3. Update the resolution as appropriate.
It would be fantastic to have a resolution to the board on the 19th of
May, but lets see how we go.
Cheers,
Berin
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
