Hi Berin and Andy,
I've now updated the offending section (4.3b) to try and address some of
Andy's concerns. There's some more feedback I want to solicit before I try
again to call for a vote on this stuff, so there's still lots of time for
folks to comment. But here's hoping we can wrap this up in the next couple
of weeks or so.
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]
06/01/2004 05:52 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
general
Can't help myself, I'm going to stir the pot again....
Andy - did you update the wiki with your thoughts?
Cheers,
Berin
Andy Clark wrote:
> 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.
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
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]
