Neil Graham wrote:
I've now rolled some of the points that we seem to have consensus on into
the original charter I suggested back at the beginning of April. I've
posted it on the Wiki page [*] where Berin had kindly placed his reworking
of that document.
Looks good. I am pleased to see the text explicitly provide
a place for sub-projects that are not strictly parser impls.
However, I would like to see 4.3.b changed from "componentry"
to something that reflects related function. For example,
an "HTML" sub-project would likely have several "components".
In other words, I'd rather see one HTML sub-project instead
of two (e.g. "HTML DOM" and "HTML parser").
Also, would these "components" be separated by programming
langauge as well? For example would an HTML parser in Java be
a different sub-project than an HTML parser in C/C++?
Other than that, I like it. There are a few minor wording
issues but the ideas and content are sound.
If we can get agreement on that, then I for one would be cool for actually
voting on the resolution Berin drafted for us (which I've included below,
with a few modifications, chief among them an attempt at specifying the
composition of the PMC based on who it seems to me are the active
committers these days). I haven't tried to fill in the field for PMC Chair
though. :)
Speaking of which, what ever happened to that tool someone
was writing to tabulate who was posting to the mailing lists/
commiting code and then mailing status reports to the mailing
list each month? That would certainly help us stay on top of
who is active vs. inactive.
--
Andy Clark * [EMAIL PROTECTED]
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
